Old Covenant vs New Covenant

August 15, 2015

In fact I'm of the opinion the whole portion of the "Old Testament" was allowed to transpire as a lesson book to enable mankind to realize the utter futility of struggling to save themselves.

And which of the Old Testament characters do you see as "struggling to save themselves" ? I believe that is a mischaracterization of the Old Testament and the salvation that God provides.

Many of the OT stories illustrate how God saves against overwhelming odds, not because his people deserve it, but because God wants to provide the help they need. In the Old Testament God's salvation saved from captivity, illness, invading armies, famine, thirst and other things that threaten in this life.

In the Old Testament, God's people are not concerned about eternal salvation because they already trusted God to take care the afterlife as part of their covenant relationship with God. The question of "How does a person gain eternal salvation?" doesn't come to the forefront until the New Testament, after the Israelites had been influenced by Greek culture.

Is the prevalent disparaging view of the "old covenant" due to sour grapes on the part of the Gentiles? Do we try to console ourselves for getting left out of that covenant (which is erroneously said to be "only for the Israelites") by finding fault with a covenant that we think we can't have, and by pretending that we don't want it anyway, and by trying to prove that it's obsolete (even though God's Word says it's a good covenant and not obsolete). Part of the "good news" of the New Testament is that both Israelites and Gentiles can enter into the renewed and improved covenant that God makes with Israel because of the redemption and purchase that Jesus provided in accordance with all of God's covenants.

As far as I can tell the attitude of "trying to earn God's favor" is predominantly a Gentile thing that we have taught and projected onto the Jews. The Israelites were chosen and have inherited the promises and covenants of God from Abraham as surely as we have all inherited mortality from Adam.

The covenants and promises of God's Word can be trusted -- both the benefits as well as the discipline and judgments of God.

August 15, 2015

And which of the Old Testament characters do you see as "struggling to save themselves" ? I believe that is a mischaracterization of the Old Testament and the salvation that God provides.

Many of the OT stories illustrate how God saves against overwhelming odds, not because his people deserve it, but because God wants to provide the help they need. In the Old Testament God's salvation saved from captivity, illness, invading armies, famine, thirst and other things that threaten in this life.

In the Old Testament, God's people are not concerned about eternal salvation because they already trusted God to take care the afterlife as part of their covenant relationship with God. The question of "How does a person gain eternal salvation?" doesn't come to the forefront until the New Testament, after the Israelites had been influenced by Greek culture.

Is the prevalent disparaging view of the "old covenant" due to sour grapes on the part of the Gentiles? Do we try to console ourselves for getting left out of that covenant (which is erroneously said to be "only for the Israelites") by finding fault with a covenant that we think we can't have, and by pretending that we don't want it anyway, and by trying to prove that it's obsolete (even though God's Word says it's a good covenant and not obsolete). Part of the "good news" of the New Testament is that both Israelites and Gentiles can enter into the renewed and improved covenant that God makes with Israel because of the redemption and purchase that Jesus provided in accordance with all of God's covenants.

As far as I can tell the attitude of "trying to earn God's favor" is predominantly a Gentile thing that we have taught and projected onto the Jews. The Israelites were chosen and have inherited the promises and covenants of God from Abraham as surely as we have all inherited mortality from Adam.

The covenants and promises of God's Word can be trusted -- both the benefits as well as the discipline and judgments of God.

…42"And the LORD said to me, 'Say to them, "Do not go up nor fight, for I am not among you; otherwise you will be defeated before your enemies."' 43"So I spoke to you, but you would not listen. Instead you rebelled against the command of the LORD, and acted presumptuously and went up into the hill country. 44"The Amorites who lived in that hill country came out against you and chased you as bees do, and crushed you from Seir to Hormah.…Deuteronomy 1

4Finally, all the elders of Israel met at Ramah to discuss the matter with Samuel. 5“Look,” they told him, “you are now old, and your sons are not like you. Give us a king to judge us like all the other nations have.”

6Samuel was displeased with their request and went to the Lord for guidance. 7“Do everything they say to you,” the Lord replied, “for it is me they are rejecting, not you. They don’t want me to be their king any longer....1 Samuel 8

37"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38"Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!…Matthew 23

God is Love! Jesus saves!

August 15, 2015

Hi Ron. This addresses one of the points you raised in regards to the establishment of the Old Covenant.

[Quote, presumably from Waggoner]
The two women, Hagar and Sarah, represent the two covenants. We read that Hagar
is Mount Sinai, "bearing children for slavery." Just as Hagar could bring forth only slave
children, so the law, even the law that God spoke from Sinai, cannot beget free men. It
can do nothing but hold them in bondage. "The law brings wrath," "since through the
law comes knowledge of sin. Romans 4:15; 3:20. At Sinai the people promised to kept
the given law. But in their own strength they had no power to keep the law. Mount
Sinai "bore children for slavery," since their promise to make themselves righteous by
their own works was not successful and can never be.

This appears to be written from an incomplete view of the Law-- as if it consisted only of the "ministry of death" which would be the inevitable outcome of the Law for every person who failed to achieve a perfectionist's life of impeccable legalistic obedience. If that was what Scripture taught about the Law, the author would be quite correct in presenting this hopeless picture of Israel under the Sinai covenant. But I think he misses the bigger picture as well as a number of pertinent details.

When Moses was reviewing the Law with the Israelites in Deuteronomy 30, he said, "See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity;" (verse 15) and "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants" (verse 19). Scripture teaches that God's Law of Moses has two aspects, "ministries" or purposes-- the ministry of life that operates when people embrace God's covenant resulting in life, freedom, and righteousness; and the ministry of death that operates when people turn away from God's covenant resulting in death, bondage, and condemnation; Just a few paragraphs before Paul talks about the "ministry of death" in 2 Cor 3:7, he says that his own New Covenant ministry also evokes both death and life, depending on the reaction of the hearers (see 2 Cor 2:15-16). If you present only the "death" aspect of God's Law (or the Gospel) you could make it look rather dismal, as the quotation you provided does.

If this quote you provided was written by Waggoner, he has forgotten that the Israelites were already heirs of Abraham's covenant (which Waggoner calls the New and Everlasting Covenant), so they were already able to draw on God's strength, and were already living as redeemed children of God brought forth from Egypt by God's mighty arm. Granted, they were not "perfect", just Abraham was not perfect and as you and I are not perfect. But God's Law of Moses does not require nor expect perfection. It had provisions to deal with sin and to provide forgiveness through the sacrifices that foreshadowed Messiah's life-giving ministry. Of course, the people and the nation would sin again at times, just like you and I do. But the Law provided for that too, for God provided the Israelites with abundant livestock for sacrifices, and day after day and year after year God's calendar provided repeated opportunities for repentant sinners to draw near to Him at the Sanctuary, where with the help of the priests who represented Messiah they could offer up the sacrifices that testified of Messiah. I suppose, if you wanted to, you could paint that as a hopeless round of ceremonies. But since it is the form of worship that God himself designed, I suspect that it actually meets the human and spiritual needs of the worshipers -- showing the seriousness of sin's consequences as well as the abundant grace provided by God. Of course, from our vantage point of ignorance we could venture to criticize and find fault with what God instituted. That would put us in the seat of the scoffers. You may not have noticed, but when the author of Hebrews compares the priesthood and sacrifice of Jesus to the temple services, he doesn't denigrate what God instituted through Moses, but rather shows how the ministry of Jesus is better than the good thing that God had instituted earlier.

Not only did God's covenant with Israel have provision to deal with sin, it also had provisions to deal with prolonged and persistent outright rebellion. God promised to discipline Israel to turn their hearts back to Himself -- famine, sword, exile, etc. And God also promised Israel that their descendants would return to the Land given to Abraham-- not because Israel would deserve it, but to glorify God's own name-- a return that has not fully happened yet. The return of Israel after exile is the setting in Jeremiah in which the "new covenant" promise is given-- a covenant that hasn't fully happened yet.

This post is already too long, so I'll deal with Hagar and Mt. Sinai in another post.

One more point. People often say that Israelites living under God's Sinai covenant were doomed to failure. But the New Testament shows that is not so. In Luke 1:5-6 it describes two people living under the "old covenant" who "were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord." Apparently the quote you provided above is quite mistaken. These two people were not living in slavery to sin. They were living the Sinai covenant the way that God designed it to be lived.

August 15, 2015

You wrote this:

That's what I was responding to when I said, "Where do you get this idea from? There's nothing in Scripture which says that if salvation is by grace then man has no part to play in his salvation"., which question I still have. I don't know where you got the idea that if salvation is by grace, then man has no part in being sanctified or justified.

It's really simple. There's no argument that salvation is by grace. It only follows that the processes involved in salvation must necessarily be by grace. Since sanctification and justification are processes in salvation, therefore they are all by grace.

August 15, 2015

Here sare some thoughts on John 3:16. I'm going to quote from Ellen White, not as means of proof, but because of its eloquence, since I agree with the points, and coulnd't express them better myself.

Tying back to what you wrote, I think I agree with the general concepts of what you wrote, but would express it differently, and also there are points I would emphasize. To put it first in a way that I think we might both agree, God took the initiative to do something for man by means of the life, death and resurrection of Christ, which benefits every person in the human race. Human beings have the opportunity to respond to what God did, and if they respond they will overcome evil with good. I think we can both agree to this.

Where's the disagreement then? I believe the most important thing is God's character. This is what the Great Controversy is about. In the garden of Eden, the serpent deceived Eve into thinking that God did not have her best interests at heart, tell her that she would become as gods if she would partake of the forbidden fruit, the implication being that God didn't want her to do that, because that would be good for her, and God wanted to keep her down. The serpent created doubt in Eve's mind about the character of God, and Eve responded, which led to her sin.

Everything happens in our mind. The foundation of our ethics and morals are our concept of God's character. Who we think God is impacts every decision we make, how we think about others and treat them; nothing is more important than getting right who God is (meaning what God is like).

In order to overcome the enemy, in order to enable us to overcome evil with good, God sent His Son to show us what God is really like. There's a translation of John 1:18 which says something like "No one has seen God at any time. His only Son, who knew Him best, has shown us what God is really like." A very nice translation, which captures the them of the book of John, and, indeed, the theme of Scripture, God's revelation of Himself in Christ.

The above quote speaks of "light shining from the cross". This light is the love of God revealed by the cross. Jesus said if he were lifted up, He would draw all unto Himself. It is by the revelation of the cross, which reveals the love and goodness of God, that Jesus is lifted up and we are drawn to God. Peter speaks of how Christ died to "bring us to God," and it is by revelation that this happens; the goodness of God leads us to repentance (Romans 2:4). Repentance is the key to reconcilation. God does not need to be reconciled to us, but we need to be reconciled to God, and this happens when we believe the revelation of God in Jesus Christ; in other words, when we believe in Christ.

This reconciliation occurs if we do not resist the drawing power of Jesus Christ. If we respond, we will be converted, and inherent in this conversion is reconciliation to God, and to His law, which is a transcript of His character. Or, to use the language of Scripture, the law is written in our heart and mind. This is justification by faith, and how we overcome evil with good.

How were we reconciled to God?

^KJVRomans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

August 15, 2015

It's really simple. There's no argument that salvation is by grace. It only follows that the processes involved in salvation must necessarily be by grace. Since sanctification and justification are processes in salvation, therefore they are all by grace.

this is consistent with my own study of the book of Romans. This book is often used to articulate our understanding of the dissection of salvation into some kind of multi step process with distinct component parts we call justification, sanctification and glorification. But when I read through the book from beginning to end, taken as a whole without selective proof texting, it became clear to me that Paul speaks of salvation more as a singular event and the translated words we use as distinct steps in a process of salvation are often used by Paul interchangeably to mean one and the same thing - salvation. He does not seem to consistently break it down in these distinct elements we call justification and sanctification. For Paul it is all salvation by grace through faith, or trust if you will, in the one that does it all, for us, to us, and in us, in the past, in the present and in the future. We can take no credit. We cannot do anything that will save ourselves. Our efforts always in every way, no matter how far we can possible take it fall short of the righteousness needed to achieve our eternal life, our salvation. It is all about Jesus - what He did on the cross, what He continues to do for and in us now, and what He will ultimately finalize in the future. This is the roar of the chorus of the saints revealed in the End - "Worthy is the Lamb. He alone is worthy." The distinct attribute and response of the saved, as portrayed in The Revelation of Jesus, is that they simply follow the Lamb wherever He goes right through to the End when all things are made new.

August 15, 2015

Mastery of Greek does not always make one right. You have your own reading of the verse. I have mine. If we insist on both our readings, we are going no further. Your reading makes man to have a part in his being sanctified. My reading makes man to have no part. This is why I offer Heb 10:10 that seems to prove my point. Still you keep mum on Heb 10:10 on whether man has part or no part in his being sanctified.

Neither of these things matter. The only two things that matter is what did the original writer mean, which pnatt is working to determine, and what does God say, which is determined by the rest of scripture, not my interpretation of what the man who wrote this passage is saying. Pnatt is being faithful to the first of these thing and Samie is being faithful to the second, but neither of you can be deemed correct because neither of you is making an effort to meet the full burden of proof in the matter.

In almost any doctrinal matter, and most particularly this one, a person who is only seeking validation of his own beliefs is going to be able to fall on either side of the argument and with full "scriptural support" meaning only that he can find plenty of witnesses in scripture to support his personal take on the issue. This is not actually full scriptural support because it ignores half of what scripture says on the matter because that is completely contradictory to his belief. Scripture is full of these "contradictions" and anyone who tells you it is not is either lying or does not know scripture. These "contradictions" are extremely obvious and cannot be honestly denied, and this is a major point on which church people drive many more honest people into atheism or agnosticism.

The problem is not the contradictions themselves; the problem is our understanding. Almost universally we are overly simplistic and work very hard to remain so instead of growing up. I am often asked by students, "which is right, a or b?" They get offended when my answer is yes, but this is all too often the proper answer for many of these questions, regardless of the subject matter. It's like saying, "Which is a fruit, the apple or the orange?" The answer is yes. Most of you can easily see this, but now let's get into an area of actual distinction in which the most common definition is false, and ask, "Which is a fruit, the tomato or the green bean?" (I almost invalidated my argument by saying bean, not green bean. The difference is important.) Again the answer is yes because both are fruits. Most people have some understanding that a tomato is actually a fruit and not a vegetable, but not why it is properly classified as such. Because they do not know why they cannot understand why the green bean is also a fruit. Knowing the proper definition of these terms makes proper understanding possible. A vegetable is a root, stem or leaf of a plant. A fruit biologically is the seed pod. Biblically fruit includes and is especially the seed. I cannot tell you, either biblically or biologically the precise definition of nuts and grains since both are seeds. Yet the Bible makes this distinction which means at some point it will be important and something we simply cannot ignore, but in most cases our understanding that all are fruits will be adequate.

So the problem is not which is true and which is false, the problem is we saddle ourselves with incomplete, inadequate, and just plain false definitions for related things that are the building blocks for what we are now discussing then ask the wrong and completely invalid questions based on those incorrect assumptions. The question which is true is invalid on the face of it because the word "which" carries the connotation that only one can be true. It does not necessarily demand that both cannot be true but the blank and unbelieving stare on the face of the questioner clearly indicates that he was placing that restriction on his understanding and trying to force that restriction on you. The answers, "Yes," or, "Both," completely stun him and leaves him no place to go with follow ups because he is simply too simplistic in his views and cannot go where the truth actually lies. This person will never find truth unless and until he finds himself willing to reexamine and correct much more basic assumptions.

The Bible is full of examples for both points of view and those who choose one side or the other regularly prove this with very valid texts which legitimately say what either side claims they, when taken out of the context of the entire Bible. Paul, the darling of the righteousness by faith alone crowd, regularly falls squarely on the middle of the fence on this issue, which is why it surprises me that the righteousness by works crowd do not use him more to refute the arguments of the righteousness by faith crowd. It seems they buy into the falsehood that Paul taught righteousness by faith alone and never actually read what Paul said for themselves. Then again, part of this problem is that Paul did teach justification by faith alone and most people simply assume these two terms are equal. They are not and justification is only the first of three in the plan of salvation. The confusion of these two terms is at the basis for nearly, if not every argument I have herd from both sides, and both side regularly abuse the scriptures they cherry pick because they do not know these two proper definitions. It does not matter which side of the issue you fall on; until you correct these basic definitions everything you believe on the matter is false. Contains truth does not make truth.

Paul, the darling of the righteousness by works crowd most clearly refutes every other argument of that crowd when he says,

¹²Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, ¹³for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose. Philippians 2

The answer once again is both, and not so simplistic as either side wishes to make it. Whether I am doing these good works by the power of the flesh in accordance with the Old Covenant it is because I recognize that law, which I agreed to obey, is the word of God, and if out of a sincere desire I am attempting to follow it (and not simply use it for carnal means -- there is still the matter of the heart in this -- then it is still God who works in me to will (act of the mind) and act (and act of works) in order to fulfill his purpose and not my own. If I am under the New Covenant in a particular matter, that law is already written in my heart and I do not have to try to keep his law in that matter; I simply do keep his law in that matter, and that is him working through me, but Paul's words make it clear that I am still supposed to be conscious of this and not simply act as a mindless automaton.

Let's set aside the simplistic points of view and come into God's understanding.

August 16, 2015

…28"Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. 29"Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. 30"For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."....Matthew 11

This is a great verse, one too often overlooked, often thought of as, "My yoke is hard, and My burden is heavy".

And most people forget that when Jesus spoke about His easy yoke, He himself was living according to the Law of Moses which he himself had given to Moses. God's Law of Moses is often thought of as "God's law is burdensome and leads to bondage". Yet that was what Jesus was living and showing people how to live as it was designed.

August 16, 2015

Ron,

You assume too much, both about what I do or do not know, and about what scripture actually says. Now I'm going to assume just a little bit. I may be wrong, but based upon what you said about how you study this issue and upon many of the things you say in your posts I do not believe I am very far from the mark.

First, you have never really studied this issue, regardless of your claim. Rereading the entire Bible every few years keeping an eye out for passages that may apply to some particular question, whether this comparison of the "two" covenants or something else is NOT Bible study on those issues and will not replace sitting down with a Bible, with a concordance or searchable Bible software and a willingness to go to other source materials as well and really dig in the dirt. You cannot find a buried treasure without digging. Just scratching the surface every few years won't get you to the depths to which the real treasure is hidden.

It does look like I my assumptions about what you believed were not accurate.

Searching with Bible software is a very useful and important way to search out a matter in Scripture. That's what I do, and what I referred to when I said, "In addition to my other studies...". But doing word studies can miss other passages that deal with the same topic but use other words or phrases. As well, a word search often misses the stories of how God dealt with people whose lives are touched by the concept being studied. Also when picking verses out using search software, a person tends to miss the larger context and how the verse fits into the whole chronological timeline of God's Word. So, as useful as word studies are, I don't consider that I have adequately studied a question until I have finished re-reading the whole Bible with that particular issue in mind.

August 16, 2015

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

Read the rest of the verse:

¹⁰For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

There are two parts to this and you are not saved until you have done the works portion according to this verse. We can continue the argument between you and Samie as to whether the work is you doing it or Jesus doing it in you. The outward appearance will be the same regardless. I don't believe that only God can see the heart. A well trained behaviorist (I'm trained and experienced as a teacher so sort of qualify) can tell a lot about what is going on inside by watching your actions and listening to your words long enough. Abraham Lincoln was telling the truth when he said you can fool some of the people all the time and all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all the people all the time. To paraphrase what God told Samuel, God did not say man can't see the heart, he said man doesn't look at the heart. There is a difference; and it is possible to get a very good indication of a person's sincerity and just how honest they are with themselves over time. It usually doesn't take a lot of time either if you know what to watch for.

I'm a bit less certain about the running tiff with Ron except that he and I are both interpreting your words as meaning you are nearly in full agreement with him, yet don't know enough about the issue or what he says to properly teach it and defend it yourself so when questioned you back out and insist we not question you on this belief because it is Waggoner's. Why would we want go to Waggoner, read his stuff and take issue with it? Waggoner isn't here to defend his stuff, and is not the one putting it out there as the standard of truth. You are. I'm with Ron on this one. The Bible is the standard. This is what Ellen White said over and over and I know it is fundamental belief 18 or whichever Ron said it is, but I know very few Adventists, Ellen White included, who really believed this and truly examined every one of their beliefs according to this standard. Mosts Adventist I know have absolutely no problem arguing against the Bible using Ellen White as their standard and will not fully believe anything that cannot be found in her writings.

The Bible is the standard we much follow, and we are not following it if we are reading only half the text we wish to quote in support of our belief. Furthermore, as I wrote in another post, if you don't use the right definitions for your terminology from the beginning you end up at some point with serious problems, and more often those problems come sooner rather than later. Justification and salvation are not the same thing. I have explained this at length in a couple of posts and should not have to repeat it. However, if as is very common in the church you equate the two and start taking texts that apply to justification and prove salvation all you do is end up confusing everyone. I see a lot of that going on here, and until we are ready and willing to correct this problem nothing will be solved in our understanding of Salvation.

Perhaps we should be going back to the basics instead of discussion the covenants. If we don't even know what salvation is or what the parts of salvation are and that none of the three alone can be called salvation, we have no basis for the study of the mechanisms by which God brings that salvation to us.

August 16, 2015

Searching with Bible software is a very useful and important way to search out a matter in Scripture. That's what I do, and what I referred to when I said, "In addition to my other studies...". But doing word studies can miss other passages that deal with the same topic but use other words or phrases. As well, a word search often misses the stories of how God dealt with people whose lives are touched by the concept being studied. Also when picking verses out using search software, a person tends to miss the larger context and how the verse fits into the whole chronological timeline of God's Word. So, as useful as word studies are, I don't consider that I have adequately studied a question until I have finished re-reading the whole Bible with that particular issue in mind.

Very good statement here Ron. There is nothing wrong with doing the word searches, in fact they are often the place to start and where and how we learn proper definitions for God's terminology. Unfortunately most people do their word searches in English, not Hebrew and Greek, and these tend to be of minimal value and often serve to greatly confuse the situation. The English word you search can be used for half a dozen different Hebrew and/or Greek words, all with their own meanings and very often not the meaning used in the translation. Then again, the opposite is also true, so when you are looking for the meaning "spirit" you don't really know if you are seeing the concept of ruach (breath, wind, spirit) or neshamah (breath, intellect, spirit). They are very similar but there is a very important distinction, and if you are searching in English you will miss the point. Worse, is a word like nephesh (soul) which is translated into 38 different words or phrases in the KJV. If you are trying to determine exactly what a soul is how can you if the translators muddy the waters this badly according to their own inaccurate understanding?

I do a great deal of studies of various stories and have learned over the years how to use multiple key words to apply to a given subject, but I lack one thing that you do and which would be very beneficial to my study and understanding, and that is the yearly, or at least occasional read through. I miss a lot from the minor prophets (with a few exceptions) because their material is not something that comes up often in my work. There are also large sections of Isaiah, Ezekiel and Jeremiah that I rarely see even though I spend a lot of time in these books. It is not that there is nothing in these other books that is relevant, it is more a matter of my familiarity with them and perhaps the lack of the right key words as well (I often find that I cannot find a relevant passage when I search because I cannot remember the precise wording used in that passage and a try of several key words does not provide the wording used in that passage.) We need to include all these thing in our study.

August 16, 2015

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.

Samie,

This is not the way this works. Paul discusses this at length in Hebrews. The way you describe this is how Paul describes the sacrifice of bulls and goats for a sin offering. It is not that Jesus continually justifies us every time we sin. If this were the case, according to Paul's logic we would have to crucify Jesus every time (Hebrews 6:6). Instead, Jesus died once for all (Hebrews 10:10). By that one act every sin for all time is justified. That's not to say there are other mechanisms at use in the process. Pnatt referred to Romans 10:10 which says, "In your heart you believe and are justified." Your state of mind prevents justification even though the full penalty has already been paid and credited to your account. This is also part of why God cannot forgive on-going sin. There has been no acknowledgement of either the sin or the payment for it, and until there is the actual crediting of this payment to your account does not take place. Once you have been justified you are declared righteous by God and at that point the process of sanctification. From that point forward so long as you remain in the process, your sins are not credited to you.

Blessed is the one whose sin the Lord does not count against them and in whose spirit is no deceit. Psalms 32:2

Once Jesus has justified you and you enter sanctification your sins are no longer credited to your account; they have already been paid, once for all. This is not a continuing process, it is a once done deal. Words mean something, and these are the words God's apostles used to describe this process. Do not impose your understanding on God, Submit your understanding to his.

August 16, 2015

Second, I believe your mind is made up and you absolutely refuse to be convinced of anything else. Why else would you quote directly from passages Paul wrote showing the inadequacy of the Old Covenant and preparing the church which was still heavily clinging to its practice for the destruction of its temple? I never said the Old Covenant was defective. At the time you wrote that no one else in this immediate discussion had either, although I have regularly seen people make this claim.

Myron, I may have used the wrong word to describe your negative view of the Old Covenant. In the paragraph above you are apparently making a distinction between the "inadequacy" that you assert and the "defective" which you deny.

When you started out labeling the church, whose decisions you disagree with, as "Old Covenant" it appears that you have a less than positive view of the Old Covenant.

In that same post (in the original Now the Fallout thread) you stated "The mosaic form of the law is only in part" yet asserted "However, the law remains in its complete form." which implies that you also view the Law of Moses as incomplete

Further in that same post, you stated in part:

However, later in Galatians 5 Paul has this to say regarding those who insist on putting themselves under the Old Covenant in any way, shape or form:

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

Here you have interpreted Paul to say that the Old Covenant causes a believer to become burdened again by a yoke of slavery. As you know, Paul himself does not identify that yoke of slavery as the Old Covenant. You have apparently adopted a popular interpretation of the verse which makes Paul contradict what is taught in the Old Testament, which makes Paul contradict himself in both words and actions and means that Paul lied about his beliefs later. The interpretation you have chosen for this passage would be rejected by those who followed Paul's instruction to "test everything" and would also would have been rejected by the noble Bereans who were commended for searching the Old Testament Scriptures to test whether the teachings of Paul himself were true. So it's not likely the interpretation that you have chosen represents accurately what Paul had in mind when writing to the Galatians.

So, although you didn't actually use the word "defective" in reference to the Old Covenant, you have stated or implied that the Old Covenant is inadequate and a cause of slavery and that the Mosaic law is incomplete.

In contrast to what you say, the apostle Paul recommended the Old Testament Scriptures in these words:
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete [or adequate], equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Your assessment of me is partially correct. I do absolutely do refuse to be convinced of anything that doesn't pass the test of Scripture. As I have explained in other threads, I believe that each passage of Scripture must not disagree with any of the Scripture that preceded it chronologically, or God himself must provide a clear sign or an explanation indicating that a change has been made. If we accept anything that does not pass such a test, we are asking to be deceived by false teachers. So I no longer accept popular interpretations of Paul's writings that ignore some part of the greater context.

August 16, 2015

Romans 1 says the following:

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

I don't see how you are claiming this passage says what you say it does. Romans 2 does say that God adequately reveals himself to everyone, but this passage is talking about the Jews, to whom he directly revealed his law.

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

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

God gave his law to Israel on the mountain and he continued revelation of himself to them through the prophets, and finally in the person of Jesus. The rest of the nations of the world did not have the advantage of this direct revelation. Israel and Judah (only the latter are Jews; that word is short for Judahite) had this revelation and held it in unrighteousness, twisting the word of God to their own purposes and to justify their own sins. They held his word in unrighteousness. The whole time they claimed to be serving God faithfully, but lip service is not what glorifies God. Our actions that prove he is in our hearts is what glorifies God.

It may be possible to legitimately extend this to the whole world since from Adam God has revealed himself to all men in various ways, directly and indirectly, and nearly every false doctrine I have ever encountered, whether in Christianity, Judaism or among the Pagans, can be traced directly to a twisting of some revelation of God that can be found in scripture. The basis is there and always has been, but in some way man spins it according to his own understanding, a spin that becomes much worse over time, and eventually contains much more falsehood than truth -- yet that kernel of truth remains, is identifiable and can be found in scripture if scripture is read properly.

August 16, 2015

Jones and Waggoner taught the same thing, so much that they could be confused with one another. One time Waggoner preached one week, and Jones the next, in the same location, and they told Jones, "Waggoner just preached on this last week". They both worked at the same place, and studied and spoke together, so it's not surprising.

You are, by your own admission speaking of their work after the 1888 General Conference session and had no knowledge that their work was a major controversy in that session, so your proofs now are immaterial to that. The research I did because of the prompt from the person on the other forum dealt specifically to their work as it applied to the 1888 General Conference session, and their work at that time was not related in anyway. Their utter rejection at that conference probably drove them together in their later work. Rejection and persecution has a tendency to do that even when the immediate subject matter that brought about that rejection was not the same in both cases.

In a subsequent post on that forum a few weeks later I wrote the following:

Furthermore, John Fleer's statement that the pioneers were vehemently against the doctrine of the trinity is simply not true. I have recently done a little bit deeper study of the 1888 controversy. As I have always understood the doctrine of righteousness by faith was the most important doctrinal issue there and the General Conference's rejection of this doctrine in preference to a form of righteousness by works was the major cause of most of EGW's condemnation of the leadership at this time and why she said not 1 in 22 Adventists would be taken to heaven if Jesus had returned at that time. Justification by faith is a salvation issue. The trinity was not. Yet just as big an issue to the participants of that conference was the issue of the trinity. Previous to me recent study I had always believed both Wagner and Jones were pressing primarily about the issue of righteousness by faith, since everyone speaks of Wagner and Jones as if they were colleagues working together on the same issues. In reality Jones was a proponent of trinity and Wagner was a proponent of righteousness by faith. Both had been major hot button issues and points of contention in the denomination since its incorporation 25 years before and came to a head at the same time. Judging from what I have read from Ellen White on the matter she clearly sided with both these men against the hierarchy of the denomination. However, even in her writings I came way with the impression that the primary issue for BOTH men was righteousness by faith. Judging from my study I am of the impression that the denomination was somewhat evenly divided on both issues, but the results of the votes in 1888 make it clear that the righteousness by works and antitrinitarians had advantage of numbers on both issues.

http://www.adventistonline.com/forum/topics/the-trinity-1?commentId=1451550%3AComment%3A4490564

These were both extreme hot button issues in the denomination up to the 1888 General Conference. The people on the two sides talked at each other, not to each other, much like you and Samie are doing, never really considered each others' evidence (as we saw in 1980 at Glacier View.) Ellen White told the leadership at the time that this was a judgment time for this denomination because the issue of righteousness by faith is that important. As I said in the quote above, this is a Salvation issue. If you don't get this one right nothing else you teach regarding the plan of salvation will be correct. These things build upon each other in a steady progression, and this is foundational. If you do not get the foundation right everything built on it is faulty and often cannot be repaired at all.

I am doing some research right now and cannot seem to duplicate my research of two years ago. While I find that the semi-Arian view vs. the trinity view of the nature of Jesus was a major controversy at that General Conference I am not finding any evidence that this was Jones' teaching, as I did two years ago. Instead, I am finding that his primary subject material regarded Armenianism, which is related to Waggoner's work on Justification by Faith.

Arminianism is a view of the atonement that is named, not for Armenia, but for the Dutch Protestant theologian Arminius. It was in response to Calvinism. Because Calvin’s views were already established when Arminius formulated his rebuttal, Calvinists attacked Arminianism as a heresy, even though both viewpoints are legitimately drawn from scripture and within the historic mainstream. The controversy has not ended: recently, a well-known preacher misrepresented Arminianism on television and portrayed it as a dangerous heresy. The Arminian position is as follows:

Salvation is conditional upon repentance and faith.

The atonement is universal; that is, Jesus died for everyone.

We are morally free. We must choose between good and evil, salvation and death; and we are held accountable for our choice. (That is, Jesus died for everyone, but only those who have faith are saved.)

The grace of God can be resisted. We can choose not to be saved. (Matthew 23:37)

There is danger of apostasy. While it is not possible to lose one’s salvation through commission of a sin or misplace it through oversight, it is possible to deliberately abandon it—or to put it in other words, you can’t fall from grace, but you can jump. (Hebrews 6:4-5)

Within the United States, most evangelical groups that are Wesleyan in theology or origin adhere to some form of Arminianism. Outside the United States, most evangelicals subscribe to some form of Arminianism. Arminianism is more compatible with eastern Orthodoxy than Calvinism is.

http://www.kencollins.com/glossary/theology.htm

Thus we find these two main points of contention facing the delegates at Minneapolis: justification is by faith not by works, and the semi-Arian view of the Godhead and its effect on the doctrine of the atonement. Prior to the 1888 Minneapolis conference a third topic of contention developed between Uriah Smith and A.T. Jones. Jones was an avid student of history, especially as it applied to the prophecies of the Bible. He had discovered that the Alemanni and not the Huns were one of the ten horns (tribes or nations) described prophetically in Daniel 7. Smith took grave exception to this new view, relying on the traditional position of the Millerites to support his position.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1888_Minneapolis_General_Conference_(Adventist)

Interestingly (to me) the Wikipedia article seems to be telling me the exact opposite of what I learned in my study two years ago regarding the trinity issue. The person from the other forum who questioned me on the matter and prompted me to research it further is no longer there. These forums attract a large number of people giving intentional disinformation for whatever reason, and at that time there was a rather strong anti-trinitarian viewpoint among some rather avid people on that forum. The claim was that the denomination voted against trinitarianism in 1888, preferring the semi-Arian view. I had checked Wikipedia at that time as well, but as with anything wiki, anyone can post anything; anyone can challenge anything. Wikipedia has a very high standard of scholarship and does make not of highly questionable material and change it as more reliable information comes in, but this is a process that takes time. I may well have fallen prey to some less than well intentioned person. I do not have any record of the websites I visited two years ago or who provided those links. I thought they all came from web searches but some may have been supplied by this person.

I have known since my academy days that righteousness by faith was the central issue of this General Conference. I do not recall that any of my religion classes in either academy nor college mentioned the trinitarian issue in this regard. As this Wikipedia article states somewhere above this referenced quote, Ellen White's endorsement of Jones and Waggoner came before the 1888 General Conference session.

It is not that the doctrine of justification by faith in general needed to be accepted by the denomination. This is a common misconception. The doctrine of justification by faith had always been accepted by the denomination, and this is easily confirmed by just seeing what the published belief of the denomination were. Also, there were many conversations between Ellen White and James White shortly before James White passed about the importance of bring Christ to the people, and making this a focal point. Ellen White refers to these conversations in her comments during the 1888 General Conference session. No, it wasn't that the denomination had not accepted justification by faith in general, but there was specific light that Jones and Waggoner were bringing (the teaching on the covenants being one example) that was the issue.

If you read the Wikipedia article you will see that this controversy had been brewing for a very long time. Before this conference there was not really an official doctrinal statement on the matter but the denomination was very much leaning toward the idea of righteousness by works, based largely on keeping the Sabbath as the central issue of salvation. It was feared that the doctrine of righteousness by faith would destroy the legal underpinning for their view of the seventh-day Sabbath. The view is rather simplistic but not surprising. Since Adventists still do not understand the full meaning of the Sabbath laws and symbolism, and since it was still a reasonably new doctrine for them they could not, and really still cannot, lose this basis for their teaching of the Sabbath. However, this basis also keeps them from seeing the full significance of the Sabbath. But without the doctrine of justification by faith you only have a doctrine of justification through works and you cannot honestly be considered a follower of Jesus Christ. In your eyes it is not his sacrifice that saves you, it is your works. That is not a believer. God made that clear in the Old Testament to any who wished to see those statements and try to understand them, and it was made unmistakable in the New Testament, although the majority of Adventists (leadership) in 1888 did miss it. After 1888 the official doctrine of this denomination was justification by works and remained so for quite some time. The attitude still remains among a large number of Adventists, even those who do give lip service to the doctrine of righteousness by faith. I never heard a sermon or any other teaching explaining justification or sanctification before the summer between my senior year in high school and my freshman year in college. Stan Hardt and Bill Fitch might disagree with me on this matter, but if they ever did teach this subject in their Bible classes it had no impact on me. I was raised in a salvation by works home so there was much to overcome before this doctrine could have any real meaning for me. Maybe that is what happened.

The timing of the Ellen White statement about Christ's coming is inaccurate, and the date is wrong. It was 1896, and the content was regarding if those who claimed to have a living experience with the things of God "had done their appointed work as the Lord ordained". And the statement is not false. And the reasons you gave are jumbled together in a way that's not easily comprehensible. The sovereignty idea is understandable, but why throw in that Jesus did not know the day or hour; what does this have to do with Ellen White's statement?

Ellen White made this statement more than once. All I remember for certain is that early on it was included in my instruction regarding the 1888 message. The one in 22 figure is used by her almost like a cliche being tossed around for issues such as proper women's dress, the number who will be saved and anything else where she desired to make a point regarding some form of behavior. Who knows when it first appeared but I think that predates 1888 by quite a bit; whether that was about the number would be saved if Jesus came today or one of the other issues I don't recall. I believe I have read the quote that specifically related the "Jesus would have come before this," statement to the 1888 conference more than once in a number of our publications. That you can produce a specific statement of that in 1896 does not mean there is not one either much earlier or that specifically relates the coming to 1888, regardless of when she actually said it. I won't look for another reference now, but I'm not going to just take your word for this either.

The sovereignty idea is understandable, but why throw in that Jesus did not know the day or hour; what does this have to do with Ellen White's statement?

Really? You are so blind that you cannot see this? Jesus statement was that the Father already DID know the day and the hour. This is an appointed time and God does not change these. The Bible teaching is that they were established before the establishment of the ages (usually translated world). God doesn't change this simply because not enough people are ready yet. For that matter God's sovereignty determined ahead of time that there would be enough ready, and he has the ability to make sure they will be. This is the meaning of some of the texts that Samie has brought to you in that argument although I doubt he sees it.

As for the personal background feel free to ask. I thought I had posted something in the last few days and was going to link to it here but I'm not finding it. This post is long enough and I need to get going so I will give you that information another time. If I forget remind me. I don't mind sharing most of it. Some details I generally keep to myself or those I know I can trust, provided I feel they need to know them, but the general stuff is all up for public knowledge as far as I am concerned.

August 16, 2015

It's really simple. There's no argument that salvation is by grace. It only follows that the processes involved in salvation must necessarily be by grace. Since sanctification and justification are processes in salvation, therefore they are all by grace.

Justification by faith is our standing "in Christ" before God and His holy law in the most holy place. It is a finished work.

Sanctification is not a additional requirement of justification by faith. If it is then we might as well join the RCC because that's their belief.

Sanctification is something we experience while resting in Christ's finished work. Hence sanctification is not meritorious, but demonstrative.

A very simple example is given by Christ Himself in John 15:3-5

“You are already clean (i.e., without blemish) because of the word which I have spoken to you." Also compare Col 1:22 ("holy and without blemish")

"Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. 5 “I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. "

Edited August 16, 2015 by Robert

August 16, 2015

And yes this is in harmony with Ellen White for those of you who need confirmation:

Perfection through our own good works we can never attain. The soul who sees Jesus by faith, repudiates his own righteousness (i.e., "perfection through out own good works"). He sees himself as incomplete, his repentance insufficient, his strongest faith but feebleness, his most costly sacrifice as meager, and he sinks in humility at the foot of the cross. But a voice speaks to him from the oracles of God's word. In amazement he hears the message, "Ye are complete in him". Now all is at rest in his soul. No longer must he strive to find some worthiness in himself, some meritorious deed by which to gain the favor of God.

Notice the following things where we fall short:

1] Our repentance

2] Our faith

3] Our selfless acts (i.e., most costly sacrifice or our works of faith)

So what ultimately saves is our position "in Christ" which is retained through faith.

In the judgement Christ will use our works of faith to prove that our faith is really in His completed work. Christ our Great High Priest does this because there is an accuser, Satan, who insists that Christ doesn't have a legal right to take us sinners to heaven because His own law justly condemns us to eternal damnation. Once Christ establishes our faith He then silences the accusations of Satan and we stand justified by faith in the doing & dying of Christ!

Edited August 16, 2015 by Robert

August 16, 2015

In the judgement Christ will use our works of faith to prove that our faith is really in His completed work. Christ our Great High Priest does this because there is an accuser, Satan, who insists that Christ doesn't have a legal right to take us sinners to heaven because His own law justly condemns us to eternal damnation. Once Christ establishes our faith He then silences the accusations of Satan and we stand justified by faith in the doing & dying of Christ!

More confirmation:

The tempter stands by to accuse them, as he stood by to resist Joshua. He points to their filthy garments, their defective characters. He presents their weakness and folly, their sins of ingratitude, their unlikeness to Christ, which has dishonored their Redeemer. He endeavors to affright them with the thought that their case is hopeless, that the stain of their defilement will never be washed away. He hopes so to destroy their faith that they will yield to his temptations, and turn from their allegiance to God.

Satan has an accurate knowledge of the sins that he has tempted God's people to commit, and he urges his accusations against them, declaring, that by their sins they have forfeited divine protection, and claiming that he has the right to destroy them. He pronounces them just as deserving as himself of exclusion from the favor of God. "Are these," he says, "the people who are to take my place in heaven, and the place of the angels who united with me? They profess to obey the law of God; but have they kept its precepts? Have they not been lovers of self more than lovers of God? Have they not placed their own interests above His service? Have they not loved the things of the world? Look at the sins that have marked their lives. Behold their selfishness, their malice, their hatred of one another. Will God banish me and my angels from His presence, and yet reward those who have been guilty of the same sins? Thou canst not do this, O Lord, in justice. Justice demands that sentence be pronounced against them."

But while the followers of Christ have sinned, they have not given themselves up to be controlled by the satanic agencies. They have repented of their sins and have sought the Lord in humility and contrition, and the divine Advocate pleads in their behalf. He who has been most abused by their ingratitude, who knows their sin and also their penitence, declares: "The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan. I gave My life for these souls. They are graven upon the palms of My hands. They may have imperfections of character; they may have failed in their endeavors; but they have repented, and I have forgiven and accepted them." [P&K 588]

Edited August 16, 2015 by Robert

August 16, 2015

Samie,

This is not the way this works. Paul discusses this at length in Hebrews. The way you describe this is how Paul describes the sacrifice of bulls and goats for a sin offering. It is not that Jesus continually justifies us every time we sin. If this were the case, according to Paul's logic we would have to crucify Jesus every time (Hebrews 6:6). Instead, Jesus died once for all (Hebrews 10:10). By that one act every sin for all time is justified. That's not to say there are other mechanisms at use in the process. Pnatt referred to Romans 10:10 which says, "In your heart you believe and are justified." Your state of mind prevents justification even though the full penalty has already been paid and credited to your account. This is also part of why God cannot forgive on-going sin. There has been no acknowledgement of either the sin or the payment for it, and until there is the actual crediting of this payment to your account does not take place. Once you have been justified you are declared righteous by God and at that point the process of sanctification. From that point forward so long as you remain in the process, your sins are not credited to you.

Once Jesus has justified you and you enter sanctification your sins are no longer credited to your account; they have already been paid, once for all. This is not a continuing process, it is a once done deal. Words mean something, and these are the words God's apostles used to describe this process. Do not impose your understanding on God, Submit your understanding to his.

Hi Myron,

You responded to this post;

On 8/14/2015, 4:46:52, Samie said:

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.

The above statements are from the Bible; I don't know why you said it is not the way it works.

Here's the verse saying Jesus was resurrected for our justification:

NIV Romans 4:25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

Because He was raised to life for our justification, He does this by not counting the sin committed as if we did not sin. Here's the verse saying sins are not counted or imputed against us.

NIV 2 Corinthians 5:18-19 ¹⁸ All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: ¹⁹ that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

Here’s the verse saying all sins were forgiven on the cross:

NIV Colossians 2:13-14 ¹³ When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins ¹⁴ having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

Here’s the verse saying, God remembers our sins no more:

NIV Hebrews 10:16-17 ¹⁶ "This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds." ¹⁷ Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more."

Your good explanation seems to be your own since the two verses you provided appear to me as not really saying what you were explaining. Can you please elucidate some more?

August 16, 2015

Samie,

This is not the way this works. Paul discusses this at length in Hebrews. The way you describe this is how Paul describes the sacrifice of bulls and goats for a sin offering. It is not that Jesus continually justifies us every time we sin. If this were the case, according to Paul's logic we would have to crucify Jesus every time (Hebrews 6:6). Instead, Jesus died once for all (Hebrews 10:10). By that one act every sin for all time is justified. That's not to say there are other mechanisms at use in the process. Pnatt referred to Romans 10:10 which says, "In your heart you believe and are justified." Your state of mind prevents justification even though the full penalty has already been paid and credited to your account. This is also part of why God cannot forgive on-going sin. There has been no acknowledgement of either the sin or the payment for it, and until there is the actual crediting of this payment to your account does not take place. Once Jesus has justified you and you enter sanctification your sins are no longer credited to your account; they have already been paid, once for all. This is not a continuing process, it is a once done deal. Words mean something, and these are the words God's apostles used to describe this process. Do not impose your understanding on God, Submit your understanding to his.

Hi Myron;

I don’t know of any scripture saying “By that one act every sin for all time is justified.” Instead it is all men, “every sinner” if you may, but NOT “every sin”.

^NASRomans 5:17-18 ¹⁷ For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. ¹⁸So 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.

To justify sin instead of the sinner is, to me, disastrous. The above scripture I think clearly spells out that corporate justification – justification of life to all men – occurred at the cross. Also, I wonder why you left out what I see is the real subject of the verse you offered (Heb 10:10): Sanctification.

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

The verse is clearly talking about sanctification but you used it for justification. You teach that unless first justified, people cannot enter the process of sanctification. But the verse shows that it is sanctification that is a one time deal, not justification. As I have elsewhere posted, sanctification and corporate justification occurred at the cross. But individual justification occurs each time man commits sin because Jesus was raised for our justification.

^KJVRomans 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

In order to make understanding the issue of Salvation easier, I started the thread “Understanding the Gospel Through the Book of Life”. The Gospel is the power of God for salvation; the Book of Life is the list of God of those who are bound for salvation. The Bible says that only those whose names are found written in the Book of Life can make it to the new heaven and the new earth (Rev 21:27). All others will suffer the wrath of God – the 7 last plagues, and finally thrown into the lake of fire (Rev 20:15). To me, the issue of one’s personal salvation boils down to whether his name is in the Book of Life or not.

August 16, 2015

And yes this is in harmony with Ellen White for those of you who need confirmation:

Perfection through our own good works we can never attain. The soul who sees Jesus by faith, repudiates his own righteousness (i.e., "perfection through out own good works"). He sees himself as incomplete, his repentance insufficient, his strongest faith but feebleness, his most costly sacrifice as meager, and he sinks in humility at the foot of the cross. But a voice speaks to him from the oracles of God's word. In amazement he hears the message, "Ye are complete in him". Now all is at rest in his soul. No longer must he strive to find some worthiness in himself, some meritorious deed by which to gain the favor of God.

Notice the following things where we fall short:

1] Our repentance

2] Our faith

3] Our selfless acts (i.e., most costly sacrifice or our works of faith)

So what ultimately saves is our position "in Christ" which is retained through faith.

In the judgement Christ will use our works of faith to prove that our faith is really in His completed work. Christ our Great High Priest does this because there is an accuser, Satan, who insists that Christ doesn't have a legal right to take us sinners to heaven because His own law justly condemns us to eternal damnation. Once Christ establishes our faith He then silences the accusations of Satan and we stand justified by faith in the doing & dying of Christ!

No, actually EGWs statement is confirmed in the Bible!!

August 17, 2015

This appears to be written from an incomplete view of the Law-- as if it consisted only of the "ministry of death" which would be the inevitable outcome of the Law for every person who failed to achieve a perfectionist's life of impeccable legalistic obedience. If that was what Scripture taught about the Law, the author would be quite correct in presenting this hopeless picture of Israel under the Sinai covenant. But I think he misses the bigger picture as well as a number of pertinent details.

When Moses was reviewing the Law with the Israelites in Deuteronomy 30, he said, "See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity;" (verse 15) and "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants" (verse 19). Scripture teaches that God's Law of Moses has two aspects, "ministries" or purposes-- the ministry of life that operates when people embrace God's covenant resulting in life, freedom, and righteousness; and the ministry of death that operates when people turn away from God's covenant resulting in death, bondage, and condemnation; Just a few paragraphs before Paul talks about the "ministry of death" in 2 Cor 3:7, he says that his own New Covenant ministry also evokes both death and life, depending on the reaction of the hearers (see 2 Cor 2:15-16). If you present only the "death" aspect of God's Law (or the Gospel) you could make it look rather dismal, as the quotation you provided does.

If this quote you provided was written by Waggoner, he has forgotten that the Israelites were already heirs of Abraham's covenant (which Waggoner calls the New and Everlasting Covenant), so they were already able to draw on God's strength, and were already living as redeemed children of God brought forth from Egypt by God's mighty arm. Granted, they were not "perfect", just Abraham was not perfect and as you and I are not perfect. But God's Law of Moses does not require nor expect perfection. It had provisions to deal with sin and to provide forgiveness through the sacrifices that foreshadowed Messiah's life-giving ministry. Of course, the people and the nation would sin again at times, just like you and I do. But the Law provided for that too, for God provided the Israelites with abundant livestock for sacrifices, and day after day and year after year God's calendar provided repeated opportunities for repentant sinners to draw near to Him at the Sanctuary, where with the help of the priests who represented Messiah they could offer up the sacrifices that testified of Messiah. I suppose, if you wanted to, you could paint that as a hopeless round of ceremonies. But since it is the form of worship that God himself designed, I suspect that it actually meets the human and spiritual needs of the worshipers -- showing the seriousness of sin's consequences as well as the abundant grace provided by God. Of course, from our vantage point of ignorance we could venture to criticize and find fault with what God instituted. That would put us in the seat of the scoffers. You may not have noticed, but when the author of Hebrews compares the priesthood and sacrifice of Jesus to the temple services, he doesn't denigrate what God instituted through Moses, but rather shows how the ministry of Jesus is better than the good thing that God had instituted earlier.

Not only did God's covenant with Israel have provision to deal with sin, it also had provisions to deal with prolonged and persistent outright rebellion. God promised to discipline Israel to turn their hearts back to Himself -- famine, sword, exile, etc. And God also promised Israel that their descendants would return to the Land given to Abraham-- not because Israel would deserve it, but to glorify God's own name-- a return that has not fully happened yet. The return of Israel after exile is the setting in Jeremiah in which the "new covenant" promise is given-- a covenant that hasn't fully happened yet.

This post is already too long, so I'll deal with Hagar and Mt. Sinai in another post.

One more point. People often say that Israelites living under God's Sinai covenant were doomed to failure. But the New Testament shows that is not so. In Luke 1:5-6 it describes two people living under the "old covenant" who "were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord." Apparently the quote you provided above is quite mistaken. These two people were not living in slavery to sin. They were living the Sinai covenant the way that God designed it to be lived.

To be fair to Waggoner, it would be good to read what he said in context. Regarding the above quote, he was talking about the futility of attempting to obtain righteousness by keeping the law. The giving of the law at Sinai made clear to the people their inability to produce the righteousness of the law; this was done by making the law as explicit as possible, to make their need of Christ as explicit as possible.

If this quote you provided was written by Waggoner, he has forgotten that the Israelites were already heirs of Abraham's covenant...

This is the same Waggoner who wrote, in passing, that he had written every book any SDA had written. We can be sure that Waggoner didn't "forget" anything here.

The problem of the Israelites was the problem of unbelief. Unbelief is what puts one under the old covenant; faith puts one under the new. I'll post something further shortly by Waggoner which should help progress the discussion, as it deals with subjects you mentioned.

August 17, 2015

The following quote is from "The Glad Tidings" by Waggoner. I arbitrarily put in paragraphs, to make it easier to read; other than that it's Waggoner.

The two women, Hagar and Sarah, represent the two covenants. We read that Hagar is Mount Sinai, "bearing children for slavery." Just as Hagar could bring forth only slave children, so the law, even the law that God spoke from Sinai, cannot beget free men. It can do nothing but hold them in bondage. "The law brings wrath," "since through the law comes knowledge of sin. Romans 4:15; 3:20. At Sinai the people promised to kept the given law. But in their own strength they had no power to keep the law. Mount Sinai "bore children for slavery," since their promise to make themselves righteous by their own works was not successful and can never be.

Consider the situation: The people were in the bondage of sin. They had no power to break their chains. And the speaking of the law made no change in that condition. If a man is in prison for crime, he does not gain release by hearing the statutes read to him. Reading to him the law that put him there only makes his captivity more painful. 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. 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 The Glad Tidings Ellet J. Waggoner 68 1888 Most Precious Message, Inc. covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people: for all the earth is Mine." Exodus 19:5, KJV. 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, keep the faith, and believe God's promise, they would be a "peculiar treasure" unto God. As the possessor of all the earth, He was able to do for 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 had led them into making that covenant. If the children of Israel who came out of Egypt had but walked "in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham" (Romans 4:12, KJV), they would never have boasted that they could keep the law spoken from Sinai, "for the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith." (Romans 4:13, KJV).

Faith justifies. Faith makes righteous. If the people had had Abraham's faith, they would have had the righteousness that he had. At Sinai the law, which was "spoken because of transgression," would have been in their hearts. They would not have needed to be awaked by its thunders to a sense of their condition. God never expected, and does not now expect, that any person can get righteousness by the law proclaimed from Sinai, and everything connected with Sinai shows it. Yet the law is truth and must be kept. God delivered the people from Egypt "that they might observe His statutes, and keep His laws." Psalm 105:45, KJV. We do not get life by keeping the commandments, but God gives us life in order that we may keep them through faith in Him.

The Two Covenants Parallel

The apostle when speaking of Hagar and Sarah says: "These women are two covenants." These two covenants exist today. The two covenants are not matters of time, but of condition. Let no one flatter himself that he cannot be bound under the old covenant, thinking that its time has passed. The time for that is passed only in the sense that "the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lust, excess of wine, revelings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries." 1 Peter 4:3, KJV

The difference is just the difference between a free woman and a slave. Hagar's children, no matter how many she might have had, would have been slaves while those of Sarah would necessarily be free. So the covenant from Sinai holds all who adhere to it in bondage "under the law," while the covenant from above gives freedom, not freedom from obedience to the law, but freedom from disobedience to it. The freedom is not found away from the law but in the law.

Christ redeems from the curse, which is the transgression of the law, so that the blessing may come on us. And the blessing is obedience to the law. "Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the Lord." Psalm 119:1. This blessedness is freedom. "I shall walk at liberty; for I have sought Thy precepts." Psalm 119:45 The difference between the two covenants may be put briefly thus: In the covenant from Sinai we ourselves have to do with the law alone, while in the covenant from above we have the law in Christ.

In the first instance it is death to us, since the law is sharper The Glad than any two-edged sword, and we are not able to handle it without fatal results. But in the second instance we have the law "in the hand of a Mediator." In the one case it is what we can do. In the other case it is what the Spirit of God can do. Bear in mind that there is not the slightest question in the whole letter to the Galatians as to whether or not the law should be kept. The only question is: How shall it be kept? Is it to be our own doing, so that the reward shall not be of grace but of debt? Or is it to be God working in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure?

Edited August 17, 2015 by pnattmbtc

August 17, 2015

It's really simple. There's no argument that salvation is by grace. It only follows that the processes involved in salvation must necessarily be by grace. Since sanctification and justification are processes in salvation, therefore they are all by grace.

That's not the question. I wrote, "There's nothing in Scripture which says that if salvation is by grace then man has no part to play in his salvation", which question I still have." The point of the question is not that salvation is by grace, but that man has no part to play in his justification or sanctification given that salvation is by grace. Given that salvation is by grace, it follows that the process of salvation, whether it be justification or salvation, is also by grace, but what hasn't been addressed is that because something is by grace, it must necessarily be the case that man has no part to play. This is not the argument that Paul makes. Paul never makes the argument that man has no part to play in his salvation, only that salvation is not by works.

August 17, 2015

How were we reconciled to God?

^KJVRomans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

There are two aspects to this Samie. One aspect has to do with God's disposition, and actions that God has taken, which Romans 5 deals with, and other places, like 2 Cor. 5. However, John 3:16 is dealing with another aspect, which is our experience of reconcilation. For us to experience reconciliation, we need to be born again, which is what Jesus described to Nicodemus. Jesus said to Nicodemus, "You must be born again", and explained, when Nidocument asked him how, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoseover believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." When Nicodumus believed in Christ, he was born again, and the reconcilation was complete.

Reconcilation has two parts; there is the part of the one who has been offended (God), and the part of the one who has offended (man; Nicodemus, for example). There is nothing that needs to be done on the God side of the equation, only on the man side. On the man side, it is necessary to be born again. When man is born again, as Paul puts it, he believes in the heart unto righteousness (Romans 10;10), then the man part of the equation happens.

Sign In

Old Covenant vs New Covenant

Recommended Posts

Ron Amnsn

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

rudywoofs (Pam)

Ron Amnsn

pnattmbtc

LifeHiscost

Ron Amnsn

Samie

Samie

Tom Wetmore

Myron

Ron Amnsn

Ron Amnsn

Myron

Myron

Myron

Ron Amnsn

Myron

Myron

Robert

Robert

Robert

Samie

Samie

phkrause

pnattmbtc

pnattmbtc

pnattmbtc

pnattmbtc

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity