Old Covenant vs New Covenant

[pnattmbtc]

 

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.

 

Why would you think this?  What about the other verse?  You can't just look at one verse and ignore others.

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

Not quite.  The man is sanctified by faith.  It's still God who does the sanctifying.  It's the same as justification by faith; man exercises faith, and God justifies him.

Grammatically is clear that the verse is saying that those who have faith in Christ are the ones being sanctified.

[pnattmbtc]

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.

 

There's no argument that God is the one who sanctifies; He sanctifies those who have faith in Him.

Edited August 13, 2015 by pnattmbtc

[Myron]

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?

Ron,

You and pnatt are both arguing from points of view that ignore much of what scripture says in the matter.  In my opinion you have effectively addressed pnatt's issues in this post so I won't add to what you said to him

Your premise in the quote above is false because it presumes Passover to be part of the Old Covenant.  It is not.  That covenant was not enacted until over 50 days later on the day that has since become known as Pentecost in the Greek (the 50th) or Shavuot in Hebrew (weeks).  It is also known as the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the primary sacrifice of the day was not the rams, but instead was the two loaves of leavened bread.  This was the only offering in which leavening was acceptable, and in this one it was required.  We will not get into the prophetic reasons for this now.

I am not completely satisfied from my chronological studies that Pentecost was the precise day that God spoke from the mountain, but I have proven to my satisfaction that it was in that time frame.  Pentecost is a difficult day to date precisely even by the wording given in the law.  All we know for certain is this was the 50th day after the wave sheaf barley on the day known as Firstfruits.  That offering was the first fruits of the barley harvest and the waving motion as the sheaf was offered before the veil represented death and resurrection.  Where the day of Passover itself represented death, this offering specifically represented resurrection.  It was the day after the Sabbath in the feast of Unleavened Bread, but it is not specified whether this was the weekly Sabbath of that week or if it was the annual Sabbath of that week which was the first day of the feast, the day after Passover night, and the day on which Israel left Egypt.  Where the passing over by the Angel of death was the first fulfillment of Passover, and the leaving of Egypt was the first fulfillment of Unleavened Bread, passing through the Red Sea, which Paul refers to as baptism is the first fulfillment of the Wave Sheaf Offering.  Pentecost would be 50 days after this, and it does appear that God spoke to Israel from the top of the mountain during the 45 to 55 day range from the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.  The time frame is approximately right if not exactly right for the fulfillment of the feast.  I believe I have simply missed something which makes me unable to account for a precise day, yet the rabbis argued for centuries concerning which Sabbath timed the wave sheaf offering, so maybe Moses simply omitted the information and this is why I cannot determine a precise day for this event.  Pentecost was the day on which the Old Covenant was instituted, so the events you speak of around and about Passover have nothing to do with the Old Covenant. 

Furthermore, let's examine God's word on the matter.  When God first spoke to Moses about his calling to return to Egypt he stated specific legal cause for this action.

² God spoke further to Moses and said to him, “I am the Lord; ³ and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as ^[c]God Almighty, but by My name, Lord, I did not make Myself known to them. ⁴ I also established My covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land in which they sojourned. ⁵ Furthermore I have heard the groaning of the sons of Israel, because the Egyptians are holding them in bondage, and I have remembered My covenant. ⁶ Say, therefore, to the sons of Israel, ‘I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their bondage. I will also redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments. ⁷ Then I will take you for My people, and I will be your God; and you shall know that I am the Lord your God, who brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. ⁸ I will bring you to the land which I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and I will give it to you for a possession; I am the Lord.’”    Exodus 6

Passover and the exodus are about the Abrahamic covenant, which was independently reconfirmed to Isaac and Jacob.  This is the legal precedent God used for removing Israel from Egyptian bondage, and a covenant of obedience has nothing to do with the matter.  Exodus 12 speaks entirely of the Passover, not the Old Covenant.  This brings us immediately to another question the Spirit has just brought brought to my attention, a matter which I addressed in another post, I believe it was yesterday in another thread, but it applies here very much and not in the way I would ever have believed before this moment.  I certainly had never thought of it before I wrote that yesterday and would not have thought of it now but for having recently spoken of it.

Everyone had to be circumcised before they could celebrate Passover.  Circumcision was the sign of the Abrahamic covenant, not the Old Covenant.  Because of Paul's discussions on the matter, as well as some statements made by Moses and Jeremiah, who were Paul's source, Christians with a more thorough understanding of the matter generally summarize the matter as Dr. Stephen Jones does, "Circumcision is the sign of the covenant; circumcision is the sign of the Old Covenant; heart circumcision is the sign of the New Covenant."  This statement may or may not be true, but since physical circumcision was instituted as a portion of the Abrahamic Covenant, and was required before we can experience Passover (justification by faith), this statement is simplistic at best.  This having just come to me now I don't know where to go with this revelation at this point. 

 

[pnattmbtc]

Ron,

You and pnatt are both arguing from points of view that ignore much of what scripture says in the matter.  In my opinion you have effectively addressed pnatt's issues in this post so I won't add to what you said to him

II think Ron was responding to what Waggoner wrote, and mistakenly attributed it to me.  I'll have to look back at his response, but I believe Waggoner was very clear in his presentation, and it was very much based on Scripture.

[Myron]

Ron and pnatt,

Ok, I lied above.  As I was answering Ron I found that I do need to add points to the matters he addressed to pnatt; as good as his points were he missed some things that need to be brought into this discussion.  Once I saw the matter of circumcision for what it really is (or more accurately is not) it became absolutely necessary to address both of you about this matter.  Ron, I see these things as much because your statements sent me back to the scriptures to see what they really say on the matter so you are at least as instrumental in this as the post I was working on yesterday that gave me the basis for correcting this understanding and for that I must thank you.

Perhaps it is related to what I showed you in a previous post, the law was known well before it was revealed at Sinai, and long before the covenant ceremony, when God first spoke of this promise to Abraham he had made this obedience a condition of that promise.  The ceremony itself removed Abraham's obedience as a condition of this covenant.  Abram, as he was known at that time, had intended to walk between the pieces of the sacrificial animals with God, but God put Abram to sleep and then passed between the pieces himself in the form of a firepot, and gave Abram a vision of this event.  Because of the importance of this act Moses intentionally left any reference to obedience out of his account up to the point where Paul tells us

¹⁹ Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.  Galatians 3

I will stipulate one correction here.  Judeo-Christian theology after the Babylonian captivity has made too much of the theology of angels.  Both the Hebrew word malak and the Greek word angelos simply mean messenger.  The Bible uses both words to describe both spirit beings sent from God and human messengers used by both God and man. So here we see that the law was ordained through messengers.  These were the prophets.  On the first day of Pentecost God spoke to the people, they ran and and said to Moses, you go talk to God and come back to tell us what he said but do not let him talk to us lest we die.  Therefore, Moses went up the mountain as the first man God specifically designated to hold the office of prophet, even though prophets had existed in the world long before.

Because the people were violating God's law, and because

²⁵ In the daytime (for there will be no night there) its gates will never be closed; ²⁶ and they will bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it; ²⁷ and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only thosewhose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.  Revelation 21.

God had a higher law.  While obedience was not a part of the covenant promise it was necessary to enter the actual Promised Land, which is the kingdom of heaven; therefore it was also necessary for God to give them a covenant that called attention to God's law and the importance of obedience.  God could not renig on his promise simply because the people were unable to keep the law, so God had to provide a means for the keeping of that law.  The first step is the Old Covenant which was a highly simplified form of the law.  The second step is the New Covenant in which the full law will be written on our hearts.  Only then will we be clean and able to enter the Holy City.

Ron, there is no place in scripture that calls the Old Covenant a better covenant.  In fact, Paul makes it pretty clear that this cannot be a better covenant.  The Abrahamic covenant promised to save (bless) all the families of the earth, where this covenant only had the power to convict of sin and give people a sense of condemnation.  It did not matter that God did not condemn them and that even this simplified form of the law gave them that information.  Since the the law made them feel condemned because it defined sin and told of the penalties for that sin few were willing to examine that law closer to see the grace inherent in that law.  The Abrahamic Covenant promised salvation; the covenant of the law appeared on its surface to promise eternal damnation and as a result no one was willing to look further.  Which one is better?  The one that on its surface promised salvation.

It is only when Paul compares the sacrifice in types and shadows to the reality in the Book of Hebrews that he ever calls one covenant better than another.  Early on I stated that you assume too much about what I know and what the Bible says.  This is another of those instances.  Just because the Bible calls the New Covenant a better covenant than the Old Covenant does not mean that all successive covenants are better than the one that preceded them. They aren't necessarily better or worse, they are simply different, and you cannot apply the legal terminology of one to all the others. 

I am well aware of the line of thought that says the New Covenant is simply the Abrahamic Covenant restated.  I have always had a problem with that statement but never had a valid basis on which to contest it; but the revelations I received tonight as I studied and wrote the previous post and this one make it clear to me they are not, even though Paul appears to say in Galatians 3 that they are.  He does not; only people unfamiliar with the text and terms of these two covenants would claim he does because they try to force an understanding upon his words rather than letting his words make themselves clear.  The key point is this:  Both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are law covenants; one depends on the power of my flesh to keep the law, the other does not.  Once you see this everything else begins to fall into place quickly.  2 hours ago when God first showed me the matter of circumcision I could not see any of this, now I have a deep understanding of it simply because all the pieces have been in place for years and I understand them well. 

Intent of the Law

¹⁵ Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man’s covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. ¹⁶ Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ. ¹⁷ What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. ¹⁸ For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

¹⁹ Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. ²⁰ Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one. ²¹ Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. ²² But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

²³ But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. ²⁴ Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. ²⁵ But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. ²⁶ For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. ²⁷ For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. ²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ²⁹ And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.

In this book Paul is comparing and contrasting three covenants, not two.  Now bringing together information from Galatians, Romans and Hebrews we can now assert that this is what Paul is saying:  The Abrahamic covenant promised salvation, but because of the existence of sin God could not immediately provide this salvation without first bringing the people into obedience to his law; however it was also necessary to show that the power of mortal flesh cannot keep the law.  Therefore the first law covenant required that man swear obedience and then be given time to prove such obedience impossible, then God would supply a better covenant in which he would write his law on their hearts, and this covenant, which places the law inside us by the power of Jesus blood in a process Adventists cannot understand because they do not understand the second goat and the second doves (Leviticus 14, 16).  Two works of Christ are required, not one.

Pnatt, I am only vaguely aware of Wagner's work.  I have read some of his stuff before and knew well the message he was presenting.  It was the first major message of the reformation, and Wagner's stuff is not original to him.  Without actually studying his stuff in detail, something I've never done and probably never will it is only an educated guess when I label it as simply a rehash of Martin Luther, for a people that had intentionally grown deaf to this foundational truth, and who even today remain more Catholic than Protestant in many of their doctrinal positions.  I can see that there are problems in Wagner's stuff.  If you are honestly presenting his material and summarizing his views there are more problems than I thought, but no serious problems.  Still, I see nothing that is not already widely taught in Christianity in general. 

The common teaching is that the New Covenant is simply a restatement of the Abrahamic Covenant, something that is rather easily brought into question by simply examining their texts and which I have now shown because one is a law covenant and the other is a promise.  The logic then goes on that the Old Covenant is simply an addition of terms to the Abrahamic Covenant.  Stephen Jones takes this common teaching and explains it, based on his understanding of Galatians 3.  Because the law was added because of transgression Dr. Jones says God simply added a factor of timing to the Abrahamic Covenant.  God has the right to place any restrictions he wishes on the receiving of the inheritance, and by adding in the law God simply said, "The inheritance is assured, he isn't going to get it until..."  It is this common teaching that Ron has taken and run with to claim that the New Covenant is simply a restatement of the Old Covenant with some nice little additions to it.  Paul clearly debunks both ideas.  Notice the first statement I have underlined:  Yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it.  The idea of there being additional conditions to be met is good so far as it goes, but this statement of Paul's tells me that we must find some other legal mechanism by which these added conditions are necessary.  They cannot be a restatement of the covenant with additional conditions. I believe by explaining the matter as it has come to me tonight I have done so adequately, but the matter will still require further study.

[Myron]

II think Ron was responding to what Waggoner wrote, and mistakenly attributed it to me.  I'll have to look back at his response, but I believe Waggoner was very clear in his presentation, and it was very much based on Scripture.

That is very possible.  I went back and looked at all the relevant posts and found I was attributing some of his words to you and vice versa as well as attributing Waggoner's stuff to you.  I hope I got it all straightened out in my mind before finishing things.  Still you have presented Waggoner's stuff as something with which you substantially agree, so it would not be incorrect for someone to attributes Waggoner's statements as being your belief.

[Ron Amnsn]

II think Ron was responding to what Waggoner wrote, and mistakenly attributed it to me.  I'll have to look back at his response, but I believe Waggoner was very clear in his presentation, and it was very much based on Scripture.

I quoted what I was responding to.  It does not look like it could be Waggoner's words.  I did assume that the meaning of what you wrote agreed with what you had quoted from Waggoner.

[Ron Amnsn]

I wish I had time to keep up with this discussion.  I will try to catch up on Sabbath. 

Myron has posted some things that I agree with. 

 

[Samie]

Why would you think this?  What about the other verse?  You can't just look at one verse and ignore others.

I'm not ignoring the other verse (Acts 26:18). In fact I said that that verse says of the faith that is in Jesus. But you said the faith is man's. For me the other verse speaks differently than it does to you. So, Hebrews 10:10 settles the issue that we were sanctified THROUGH the offering of the body of Christ, in which we have nothing to do.

[pnattmbtc]

I'm not ignoring the other verse (Acts 26:18). In fact I said that that verse says of the faith that is in Jesus. But you said the faith is man's. For me the other verse speaks differently than it does to you. So, Hebrews 10:10 settles the issue that we were sanctified THROUGH the offering of the body of Christ, in which we have nothing to do.

I didn't say it was man's, Luke, the author of Acts did.  I pointed out that you misread the verse, but that the Greek did not support how you read it, and that if you look at other translations in either English or other languages, you will see that all say "faith in Me", where Jesus is the object of the faith that the person has.  You say, "For me the other verse speaks differently than it does to you.", but that's because you are misreading it based on a misunderstanding of one certain translation.  Do you think this is a valid form of Bible study?  To misread a verse, and when this is pointed out to you to just say, "this verse speaks differently to me"?

To have discussions like this, you have to be able to admit mistakes, and accept valid points that are made by those with whom you are discussing, or else what's the point?  One might as well speak to a wall.

 

[pnattmbtc]

That is very possible.  I went back and looked at all the relevant posts and found I was attributing some of his words to you and vice versa as well as attributing Waggoner's stuff to you.  I hope I got it all straightened out in my mind before finishing things.  Still you have presented Waggoner's stuff as something with which you substantially agree, so it would not be incorrect for someone to attributes Waggoner's statements as being your belief.

I agree with the idea that is my belief, but would still like Waggoner's words attributed to Waggoner.  Also, to respond to Waggoner, it would be good to read what Waggoner wrote.  This is easily found on line, and I'd be happy to post some paragraphs to help out if there's any interest.

I'll go back and see what the response was; I should have done that earlier.

Also, if any cares (I'm not sure who's who in terms of being SDA or caring about the Spirit of Prophecy), what Waggoner presented is a view identified as correct and "clear as sunlight".  It's certainly the clearest explanation I've come across.

Thanks for your responses. 

[pnattmbtc]

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.

Sorry to not respond sooner.  The "New Covenant" is the same as the "Everlasting Covenant", which is simply another way of saying "Justification by faith" or "The way of salvation" or "The Gospel".  This covenant is the covenant which God made to Abraham, and is the only covenant under which anyone can be saved, regardless of when they lived (anyone after Adam and Eve sinner, at any rate).

A key point of the covenant is that the law is written in the heart.  Note Isaiah 51:7:

Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law.

The law must be written in the heart.  It is with the heart that one believes unto righteousness (Romans 10:10 I think).

In the covenant God made with Abraham, Abraham was promised the new earth.  The new earth is a place wherein dwelleth righteousness (2 Pet. 3:16 I think), so righteousness is included in the gift of the new earth.  All of these blessings are included in Christ, so the covenant God made with Abraham, above all, includes Christ ("I am thy exceeding great reward", as was said to Abraham).  The promise is to Abraham and his seed, which is Christ, so all who believe in Christ, as Abraham did, are included in the promise.

Since this covenant is the way of salvation, it cannot be changed, because then there would be more than one way of salvation, but there is only one way of salvation, which is Christ.

[Ron Amnsn]

 

Also, if any cares (I'm not sure who's who in terms of being SDA or caring about the Spirit of Prophecy), what Waggoner presented is a view identified as correct and "clear as sunlight".  It's certainly the clearest explanation I've come across.

What was the date that EGW endorsed Waggoner's view of the covenants?  She was probably speaking of a particular presentation, book, or article.  Things that Waggoner wrote later wouldn't necessarily receive that same endorsement from EGW.

Also, both the Scriptures and SDA Fundamental Belief number 18 require that all teachings be tested by Scripture even if they are written by Ellen White or endorsed by her.

[pnattmbtc]

What was the date that EGW endorsed Waggoner's view of the covenants?  She was probably speaking of a particular presentation, book, or article.  Things that Waggoner wrote later wouldn't necessarily receive that same endorsement from EGW.

Also, both the Scriptures and SDA Fundamental Belief number 18 require that all teachings be tested by Scripture even if they are written by Ellen White or endorsed by her.

 The date was around 1896.  Waggoner prepared Sabbath School lessons which were dealing with the subject.  His view of the Covenants didn't change with time, however, so regardless of when you look, you'll see the same idea.  The basic idea that Waggoner had was that the covenants were not matters of time but of condition.  Anyone, at any time, could be under the New Covenant (by believing in Christ), or under the Old Covenant (by unbelief).

Yes, of course, everything needs to be tested by Scripture, but everything Waggoner wrote was based on Scripture, and he gives the Scriptural arguments, so the testing is right there.  I mention the endorsement in case someone is impacted by such a thing, we have her stating flat out that Waggoner's view was correct, and the thing the argument was over is the same thing which has been argued ever since.

[Samie]

I didn't say it was man's, Luke, the author of Acts did.  I pointed out that you misread the verse, but that the Greek did not support how you read it, and that if you look at other translations in either English or other languages, you will see that all say "faith in Me", where Jesus is the object of the faith that the person has.  You say, "For me the other verse speaks differently than it does to you.", but that's because you are misreading it based on a misunderstanding of one certain translation.  Do you think this is a valid form of Bible study?  To misread a verse, and when this is pointed out to you to just say, "this verse speaks differently to me"?

To have discussions like this, you have to be able to admit mistakes, and accept valid points that are made by those with whom you are discussing, or else what's the point?  One might as well speak to a wall.

You are basing your proposition upon a verse upon which we don't agree on what it really says. You said I misread it; I don't agree. You said I base my reading upon one certain translation, THE translation you yourself used in proving your contention. I think the translation is right, but you say it's not. So I again presented Hebrews 10:10 that proves my point, and you have not even tried pointing out why it does not. And you want to turn the table around and say I have to admit mistakes, and accept valid points?  I will if shown from Scriptures that I am. But why don't you try applying that principle to your own position and accept Heb 10:10 that it was THROUGH the offering of the body of Christ that we were sanctified? Until now you have not explained why Heb 10:10 does not back up my position and you want me to admit I'm wrong?

[Samie]

 The date was around 1896.  Waggoner prepared Sabbath School lessons which were dealing with the subject.  His view of the Covenants didn't change with time, however, so regardless of when you look, you'll see the same idea.  The basic idea that Waggoner had was that the covenants were not matters of time but of condition.  Anyone, at any time, could be under the New Covenant (by believing in Christ), or under the Old Covenant (by unbelief).

Under what covenant is a person who lived and died without knowing about Christ?

[pnattmbtc]

You are basing your proposition upon a verse upon which we don't agree on what it really says. You said I misread it; I don't agree. You said I base my reading upon one certain translation, THE translation you yourself used in proving your contention. I think the translation is right, but you say it's not. So I again presented Hebrews 10:10 that proves my point, and you have not even tried pointing out why it does not. And you want to turn the table around and say I have to admit mistakes, and accept valid points?  I will if shown from Scriptures that I am. But why don't you try applying that principle to your own position and accept Heb 10:10 that it was THROUGH the offering of the body of Christ that we were sanctified? Until now you have not explained why Heb 10:10 does not back up my position and you want me to admit I'm wrong?

Samie, the verse was written in Greek, not English.  You simply misread the verse.

If you look at the Greek, it says "faith in me".  It does not say "faith that is inside me".  It cannot be read that way.  To read it that way is to just make up an idea of what the verse says that has no basis in reality.

That you misread the verse can be seen by:

1.Looking at the Greek.

2.Reading an exposition of the Greek (you can do this online by digging around a little).

3.Comparing various translations.

4.If you know a language besides English, by looking at those translations.

 

By doing these things you can see that you simply misread the verse.  It cannot be interpreted to mean what you misread it to say.

You have no basis upon which to substantiate your interpretation of the verse. The Bible was written in Greek, not English.  You can't just take a translation of English which can be read different ways in English, and pick a way that you would like it to say, and go with that, without any regards to what the verse says in Greek.

I'm asking you to admit your mistake in regards to Acts 26:18.  You say, "I will if shown from Scriptures that I am." I've shown you that your interpretation of Acts 26:18 is incorrect, that it says that we are sanctified by faith in Christ.  I'm asking you to admit this, and then we can discuss Hebrews 10:10 if you like.

Also, did you respond to the parable of the pharisee and the publican?  I didn't see that you did.  I'll check again to make sure.

[pnattmbtc]

Under what covenant is a person who lived and died without knowing about Christ?

A person can know about Christ through nature and the Holy Spirit, so anyone (who has the ability to reason) can be under the New Covenant.

[pnattmbtc]

Hey Samie.  I didn't see a response to the post on the previous page about the Publican and the Pharisee.  You stated that we are not justified by anything what we do, so I presented this post as a response.  Please take a look at it and let me know your thoughts.

[Samie]

Samie, the verse was written in Greek, not English.  You simply misread the verse.

If you look at the Greek, it says "faith in me".  It does not say "faith that is inside me".  It cannot be read that way.  To read it that way is to just make up an idea of what the verse says that has no basis in reality.

That you misread the verse can be seen by:

1.Looking at the Greek.

2.Reading an exposition of the Greek (you can do this online by digging around a little).

3.Comparing various translations.

4.If you know a language besides English, by looking at those translations.

 

By doing these things you can see that you simply misread the verse.  It cannot be interpreted to mean what you misread it to say.

You have no basis upon which to substantiate your interpretation of the verse. The Bible was written in Greek, not English.  You can't just take a translation of English which can be read different ways in English, and pick a way that you would like it to say, and go with that, without any regards to what the verse says in Greek.

I'm asking you to admit your mistake in regards to Acts 26:18.  You say, "I will if shown from Scriptures that I am." I've shown you that your interpretation of Acts 26:18 is incorrect, that it says that we are sanctified by faith in Christ.  I'm asking you to admit this, and then we can discuss Hebrews 10:10 if you like.

Also, did you respond to the parable of the pharisee and the publican?  I didn't see that you did.  I'll check again to make sure.

You are asking me to decide too fast, too soon. We are still discussing sanctification, NOT justification.

"sanctified by faith in Christ" is different from "sanctified through the offering of the body of Christ". In the first phrase, man has a part; in the second, man has no part. But "sanctified by faith that is in Christ" is NOT against "sanctified through the offering of the body of Christ".  In both phrases, man has no part. It is either man has part in his being sanctified, or he has no part. I believe man has no part based on Scriptures, Acts 26:18 and Heb 10:10 included. You seem to base your position upon your reading of Acts 26:18 to the exclusion of Heb 10:10.

[Samie]

A person can know about Christ through nature and the Holy Spirit, so anyone (who has the ability to reason) can be under the New Covenant.

Are you saying all people, before and after the cross, with the ability to reason have come to know about our Lord & Savior Jesus Christ?

[Samie]

Hey Samie.  I didn't see a response to the post on the previous page about the Publican and the Pharisee.  You stated that we are not justified by anything what we do, so I presented this post as a response.  Please take a look at it and let me know your thoughts.

Yes, we are not justified by anything we do. It is through Christ that we are justified. Not through our good works.  The Publican was justified by God. It was not his humility that justified him.

Our Savior, Who was resurrected for our justification (Rom 4:25), is continually justifying us every time we commit sin by NOT imputing the sin committed against us. This sin committed had been forgiven on the cross. In fact, God remembers this sin NO MORE.

[pnattmbtc]

You are asking me to decide too fast, too soon. We are still discussing sanctification, NOT justification.

"sanctified by faith in Christ" is different from "sanctified through the offering of the body of Christ". In the first phrase, man has a part; in the second, man has no part. But "sanctified by faith that is in Christ" is NOT against "sanctified through the offering of the body of Christ".  In both phrases, man has no part. It is either man has part in his being sanctified, or he has no part. I believe man has no part based on Scriptures, Acts 26:18 and Heb 10:10 included. You seem to base your position upon your reading of Acts 26:18 to the exclusion of Heb 10:10.

You said in neither justification or sanctification does man have any part, so I responded to both.

I'm not understanding this:  "sanctified by faith that is in Christ" is NOT against "sanctified through the offering of the body of Christ".

There is no place in Scripture that speaks of "sanctified by faith that is in Christ".  Scripture talks about "sanctified by faith in Christ".  That is, Christ is the object, not the subject, of the faith.  This is Acts 26:18.  I wouldn't say this is against Heb. 10:10, because it's possible to talk about something from different perspectives, for example.  But, leaving Heb. 10:10 aside for the moment, what Acts 26:18 says is that we are sanctified by faith in Christ.

Do you understand this?  I'm still getting the impression that you are going by your misreading of the text in English as opposed to what the text actually says in Greek.

[pnattmbtc]

A person can know about Christ through nature and the Holy Spirit, so anyone (who has the ability to reason) can be under the New Covenant.

Are you saying all people, before and after the cross, with the ability to reason have come to know about our Lord & Savior Jesus Christ?

Romans 1 says the following:

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful;

 This points out that all have enough knowledge that they should glorify God and be thankful to Him.