Old Covenant vs New Covenant

[Ron Amnsn]

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.

Myron, are you listening to what you are writing?  On one hand you assert that the Old Covenant only had the power to convict of sin and give condemnation.  That assertion appears to be blatantly false, which you seem to realize because a few phrases later you state there is "grace inherent in that law" which people will see if they examine the law closely.  Yes, there is grace inherent in the Sinai Covenant, and people who use God's Law of Moses as a guide to living realize that almost immediately.  Those who don't see that grace is the foundation of the Sinai Covenant are the people who have listened to the lofty pronouncements of the antinomians.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Ron Amnsn

[Robert]

 

Jesus Christ came to reveal the Father to us.  When we see this, the entirety of all the Gospels becomes relevant, not just a few verses in the Pauline epistles. 

Those few verses, that you dismissed, are the core of the truth as it is in Christ.  

What you are attempting to present is much like the Catholic's view of "infused grace".

[pnattmbtc]

Jesus Christ came to reveal the Father to us.  When we see this, the entirety of all the Gospels becomes relevant, not just a few verses in the Pauline epistles. 

Robert: Those few verses, that you dismissed, are the core of the truth as it is in Christ.  

What you are attempting to present is much like the Catholic's view of "infused grace".

The core of the Gospel is what Jesus Christ Himself presented.  Paul viewed himself as preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ; not a Gospel concerning Jesus Christ, but the same Gospel Jesus Christ preached.

And I'm not dismissing the verses, but I differ on how you interpret them, because I rejected your premises.  I don't believe our problems, as human beings dealing with sin, are due to the law, but are due to sin.  These problems are to a great deal due to our having believed lies about God, and that God, to deal with this, sent His Son to reveal the truth about Himself. This is a common SDA theme.  For example:

 Sin originated in self-seeking. Lucifer, the covering cherub, desired to be first in heaven. He sought to gain control of heavenly beings, to draw them away from their Creator, and to win their homage to himself. Therefore he misrepresented God, attributing to Him the desire for self-exaltation. With his own evil characteristics he sought to invest the loving Creator. Thus he deceived angels. Thus he deceived men. He led them to doubt the word of God, and to distrust His goodness. Because God is a God of justice and terrible majesty, Satan caused them to look upon Him as severe and unforgiving. Thus he drew men to join him in rebellion against God, and the night of woe settled down upon the world.

The earth was dark through misapprehension of God. That the gloomy shadows might be lightened, that the world might be brought back to God, Satan's deceptive power was to be broken. This could not be done by force. The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority. Only by love is love awakened. To know God is to love Him; His character must be manifested in contrast to the character of Satan. This work only one Being in all the universe could do. Only He who knew the height and depth of the love of God could make it known. Upon the world's dark night the Sun of Righteousness must rise, "with healing in His wings." Mal. 4:2. (DA 22)

John eloquently expresses this theme in his Gospel:

 No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father's heart. He has revealed God to us. John 1:18 NLT

 

[8thdaypriest]

Ron,

I believe that grace was available to people during all of the period covered by the Torah - from Adam to Abraham to Mary the mother of Jesus.  "Noah found grace" - right? 

I do NOT believe the LAW was spoken and written on tablets, simply to show human beings that they couldn't keep it.  The LAW is a revelation of the character of God.  The LAW is a promise of what Christ will do within us.  The LAW was also a prophecy of what Christ would do for us. 

I do believe that "the LAW", without the spirit of God - can only condemn.  THAT is why it's called a "ministry of death".  But the spirit WAS available to people living during the Torah period.  That's "grace".  God's deliverance of Israel, His protection of Israel, and His blessing of Israel - all were "grace" - "unmerited favor". 

I do believe that something "changed" at the death of Christ.  THE PRIESTHOOD.  The death of Jesus marked the END of the Levite/Aaronic priesthood, and the restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood.  If you want to call that "replacement theology" - so be it.  The restored Melchizedek priesthood replaced the Aaronic. 

With the "change" of the priesthood, the system of animal sacrifice was ENDED. 

We have debated all of this before.  Paul's going to the Temple to offer sacrifice.  Ezekiel's Temple.  Etc. Etc. Etc. 

For anyone interested, I'll put a link here to the study on this topic at my website.

http://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/39-The End of Sacrifices.pdf

Blessings,

Rachel Cory,  prophecyviewpoint.com

 

[8thdaypriest]

pnatt,

Acts 17:30 "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, (NKJ)

If looking at the stars and nature were enough to let men know there is one God above all, and He has a law, then there would have BEEN no "times of ignorance".   The FACT that there WERE "times of ignorance" SAYS that all men (up to Paul's day) did not have enough information upon which to base a choice to honor God, or His law. 

When Paul wrote, "but now commands all men" - he was speaking to the "new" command to "teach all nations".  Before this - God only taught Israel, and those associated with Israel.  After Christ's resurrection, the instruction was to be given to "all men".    And WHEN they received the "knowledge of the truth" - preached by the Apostles, THEN they could "repent" (which means to turn) because THEN they would know which way to turn. 

I think that Romans 1:18-25 has been MISUSED to condemn those who have had NO KNOWLEDGE of God or of His Son, or of His Law.   If God did not condemn them, but rather "overlooked" their sin, because they had no knowledge of His Law, then how can we come along to condemn them. 

 

[pnattmbtc]

From Romans 1:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes 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, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

My point here wasn't that in regards to condemnation, but salvation.  I was pointing out that there has been enough light for those who had not heard the Gospel in the normal means to be saved.

From this passage we see there is enough light now only for people to know that God, but to know enough about His character that one should glorify Him and give Him thanks.

Regarding Acts, I think the ignorance is in regards to the tremendous revelation of Jesus Christ.  It's not that men didn't have light before now ("now" being the time of Acts, when they were preaching Christ), but the light could in no way compare to what had been revealed through Christ. 

[Ron Amnsn]

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. 

Myron, you seem to be adding to the covenants or allegorizing them.  Neither covenant mentions eternal salvation or damnation in the sense that Christians use those terms.

[Ron Amnsn]

 This message was revealed in the mid-1940s and then the people to whom it was given misunderstood it and tried to pass it back to the Jews, who were fully rejected back in 66 AD when they killed James the brother of Jesus in the temple.

Myron, where in Scripture do you find that the Jews were fully rejected in 66 AD (or at any date)?

If the Jews were fully rejected, then how can there be a throne of David on which Jesus will sit?
If the Jews were fully rejected, why are the gates of the New Jerusalem named after the 12 tribes of Israel?
If the Jews were fully rejected, how will the 12 apostles sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel?

And the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying, "Have you not observed what this people have spoken, saying, 'The two families which the LORD chose, He has rejected them'? Thus they despise My people, no longer are they as a nation in their sight.
"Thus says the LORD, 'If My covenant for day and night stand not, and the fixed patterns of heaven and earth I have not established, then I would reject the descendants of Jacob and David My servant, not taking from his descendants rulers over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But I will restore their fortunes and will have mercy on them.'"  (Jeremiah 33:23-26)

According to Jeremiah, God will not reject the descendants of Jacob while day and night continue.  The prophecy clearly states the conditions of the prophecy. The covenant for day and night is found in Genesis 8:22.  That covenant still stands, so we know that God has not rejected the descendants of Jacob.

Nowhere does Scripture mention a "church" that is separate from the literal descendants of Jacob.

 

[LifeHiscost]

Myron, you seem to be adding to the covenants or allegorizing them.  Neither covenant mentions eternal salvation or damnation in the sense that Christians use those terms.

Which covenant would you feel this is alluding to?

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise....Galatians 3
 

I would go with the everlasting covenant. And this below seems to indicate a definite separation between the Father and His chosen people, although I don't believe the individual is ever beyond the grace of Jesus if the individual so chooses submission.

 

³⁴ O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

³⁵ Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.....Luke 13

God is Love!   Jesus saves! 

 

[pnattmbtc]

Which covenant would you feel this is alluding to?

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise....Galatians 3
 

I would go with the everlasting covenant. And this below seems to indicate a definite separation between the Father and His chosen people, although I don't believe the individual is ever beyond the grace of Jesus if the individual so chooses submission.

 

³⁴ O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

³⁵ Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.....Luke 13

God is Love!   Jesus saves! 

 

Here's another verse that comes to mind:

13 For the promise that he would 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)

[Ron Amnsn]

Which covenant would you feel this is alluding to?

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise....Galatians 3
 

I would go with the everlasting covenant.

It's definitely referring to the promise given to Abraham.  But you'd need to go to Genesis to see what was actually promised to Abraham and the terms of the covenant God made with Abraham.  In this case, Paul is referring to the promise that Abraham and Sarah would have a son.

Where exactly do you find the terms of what you call "the everlasting covenant" ?  Or is it a vague sort of agreement that you can modify to suit a man-made religion?

[8thdaypriest]

Myron, where in Scripture do you find that the Jews were fully rejected in 66 AD (or at any date)?

If the Jews were fully rejected, then how can there be a throne of David on which Jesus will sit?
If the Jews were fully rejected, why are the gates of the New Jerusalem named after the 12 tribes of Israel?
If the Jews were fully rejected, how will the 12 apostles sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel?

And the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying, "Have you not observed what this people have spoken, saying, 'The two families which the LORD chose, He has rejected them'? Thus they despise My people, no longer are they as a nation in their sight.
"Thus says the LORD, 'If My covenant for day and night stand not, and the fixed patterns of heaven and earth I have not established, then I would reject the descendants of Jacob and David My servant, not taking from his descendants rulers over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But I will restore their fortunes and will have mercy on them.'"  (Jeremiah 33:23-26)

According to Jeremiah, God will not reject the descendants of Jacob while day and night continue.  The prophecy clearly states the conditions of the prophecy. The covenant for day and night is found in Genesis 8:22.  That covenant still stands, so we know that God has not rejected the descendants of Jacob.

Nowhere does Scripture mention a "church" that is separate from the literal descendants of Jacob.

 

Scripture DOES SAY that many Israelites were "cut off" or "broken off" (from the Olive tree) "because of unbelief".  This breaking "off" happened all the way along, and is still happening.  So - many Jews who HEARD the truth of the Gospel, were "broken off" from God's true Israel, when they refused to BELIEVE in Jesus Christ as Messiah. 

Non - DNA descendants of the original Israel, are "grafted in" to Israel by faith, and DNA descendants (as well of the grafted in) are "broken off" if they continue in "unbelief". 

[Ron Amnsn]

And this below seems to indicate a definite separation between the Father and His chosen people, although I don't believe the individual is ever beyond the grace of Jesus if the individual so chooses submission.

 

³⁴ O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

³⁵ Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.....Luke 13

If you believe that God modified the terms of Israel's covenant after the fact, and if you believe that the prophets lied about what God said concerning the enduring nature of His relationship with the Israelites, and if you ignore the historical context of Jesus statement, and if you ignore what Jesus actually stated at the end of verse 35, then sure, you could surmise from Jesus' words that he was announcing a separation between the Father and His chosen people that contradicted God's Word in the Old Testament.  But that would be an irresponsible interpretation of what Jesus said.

Let's look at what Jesus actually said. 

First he said that Jerusalem killed the prophets.  That's a fair summary what some of the leaders in Jerusalem did historically.  Did God make his promises and covenants with just the city of Jerusalem and its leaders? No.  The promises and covenants were for the whole nation of Israel.  The majority of the population of Israel did not reside in Jerusalem, and some of the Israelites remained obedient (such as the prophets). Now, if we go back and read the covenant and promises that God gave to Israel, what does the covenant specify as the consequences for individuals or cities who murdered prophets?  I haven't found a punishment listed specifically for killing prophets, but there are consequences listed for individuals who murder and for cities that turn away from God's ways.   In all of God's Law of Moses we cannot find any sin, rebellion, or crime for which the consequence would result in the rejection of the whole nation of Israel or the revoking of the promises and covenant.

Next in verse 34 Jesus says that He often wanted to gather the children (or descendants) of Jerusalem together, but they chose not to.  Again, the people of Jerusalem are just a minority of the nation of Israel.  Now, if we go back and read the covenant and promises that God gave to Israel, what were the specified consequences for people or cities who chose not to be gathered together?  Again, there doesn't seem to be a specific consequence listed in the covenant for this refusal to gather together. But there are consequences for rebellion. Those consequences do not result in the rejection of the whole nation of Israel.

Next in verse 35 Jesus says, "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."  What does that mean within the framework of God's covenants and promises to Israel?  There is a prophecy specifically for the leaders of Jerusalem which speaks of a house that will be desolate.  Here is the first part of that prophecy:

Thus says the LORD, "Go down to the house of the king of Judah, and there speak this word and say, 'Hear the word of the LORD, O king of Judah, who sits on David's throne, you and your servants and your people who enter these gates.
'Thus says the LORD, "Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor. Also do not mistreat or do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood in this place.
"For if you men will indeed perform this thing, then kings will enter the gates of this house, sitting in David's place on his throne, riding in chariots and on horses, even the king himself and his servants and his people.
"But if you will not obey these words, I swear by Myself," declares the LORD, "that this house will become a desolation."'"

Jeremiah 22:1-5

Just as was prophesied, the house of the king of Judah did become desolate a few centuries before Jesus spoke about this prophecy.  At the time that Jesus speaks he is the rightful King of the Jews who is prophesied to sit on the throne of David and He will be headed into Jerusalem, but because the people of Jerusalem have refused to be gathered together in justice and righteousness Jesus cannot yet enter the gates of the king's palace in Jerusalem to sit on David's throne.  So Jesus says the king's house will be left desolate for now.  Jesus didn't say that the house will be made desolate, but that it will be left desolate.

Next in verse 35, Jesus tells us how long the king's house in Jerusalem will remain desolate-- until Jerusalem is ready to welcome He "who comes in the name of the Lord."  So right within the statement that is often quoted as evidence that Jesus has completely rejected the Jews is this statement of Jesus that says a time will come when Jerusalem shall give the proper response when Jesus wants to gather together the children of Jerusalem.

This interpretation of Jesus' words would pass the test of Scripture both today and back when Jesus spoke the words, and also at the time when Luke recorded Jesus' words.  That is not true of the interpretations which try to use this passage as evidence that God has rejected the Jewish nation.

[LifeHiscost]

 

Here's another verse that comes to mind:

13 For the promise that he would 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)

Amen and amen!

1This Melchizedek was king of the city of Salem and also a priest of God Most High. When Abraham was returning home after winning a great battle against the kings, Melchizedek met him and blessed him. 2Then Abraham took a tenth of all he had captured in battle and gave it to Melchizedek. The name Melchizedek means “king of justice,” and king of Salem means “king of peace.” 3There is no record of his father or mother or any of his ancestors—no beginning or end to his life. He remains a priest forever, resembling the Son of God.

4Consider then how great this Melchizedek was. Even Abraham, the great patriarch of Israel, recognized this by giving him a tenth of what he had taken in battle. 5Now the law of Moses required that the priests, who are descendants of Levi, must collect a tithe from the rest of the people of Israel,^a who are also descendants of Abraham. 6But Melchizedek, who was not a descendant of Levi, collected a tenth from Abraham. And Melchizedek placed a blessing upon Abraham, the one who had already received the promises of God. 7And without question, the person who has the power to give a blessing is greater than the one who is blessed.

8The priests who collect tithes are men who die, so Melchizedek is greater than they are, because we are told that he lives on. 9In addition, we might even say that these Levites—the ones who collect the tithe—paid a tithe to Melchizedek when their ancestor Abraham paid a tithe to him. 10For although Levi wasn’t born yet, the seed from which he came was in Abraham’s body when Melchizedek collected the tithe from him.

11So if the priesthood of Levi, on which the law was based, could have achieved the perfection God intended, why did God need to establish a different priesthood, with a priest in the order of Melchizedek instead of the order of Levi and Aaron?^b

12And if the priesthood is changed, the law must also be changed to permit it. 13For the priest we are talking about belongs to a different tribe, whose members have never served at the altar as priests. 14What I mean is, our Lord came from the tribe of Judah, and Moses never mentioned priests coming from that tribe.

Jesus Is like Melchizedek

15This change has been made very clear since a different priest, who is like Melchizedek, has appeared. 16Jesus became a priest, not by meeting the physical requirement of belonging to the tribe of Levi, but by the power of a life that cannot be destroyed. 17And the psalmist pointed this out when he prophesied,

“You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.”^c

18Yes, the old requirement about the priesthood was set aside because it was weak and useless. 19For the law never made anything perfect. But now we have confidence in a better hope, through which we draw near to God.

 

20This new system was established with a solemn oath. Aaron’s descendants became priests without such an oath, 21but there was an oath regarding Jesus. For God said to him,

“The Lord has taken an oath and will not break his vow:

‘You are a priest forever.’”^d

22Because of this oath, Jesus is the one who guarantees this better covenant with God....Hebrews 7

These scriptures above would almost appear to reveal a fourth Member of the Godhead, which if someone were to follow that tact, I couldn't in integrity, refute it, nor would I want to.

 

Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good, And delight yourself in abundance. 3"Incline your ear and come to Me. Listen, that you may live; And I will make an everlasting covenant with you, According to the faithful mercies shown to David.

The everlasting covenant is promoted by God through His prophets at least 15 times of which this below is just one.

…2"Why do you spend money for what is not bread, And your wages for what does not satisfy? Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good, And delight yourself in abundance. 3"Incline your ear and come to Me. Listen, that you may live; And I will make an everlasting covenant with you, According to the faithful mercies shown to David.....Isaiah 53

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

[Myron]

 

The above statements are from the Bible; I don't know why you said it is not the way it works.  (Me talking: I showed you why and presented scriptural proof.)

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.  (Me speaking again:  Important point here missed by nearly all -- death paid for our sins (all of them for all time) and resurrection justified us.  Both parts are necessary.  Explanation in another post.)

 

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. (Me speaking again:  Yes, but he does not count them against us because by this one act he already paid for them, once for all, Heb 10:10.  What part of once for all can you not understand?)

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?

Sammie, it is not my fault that you are ignoring a tremendous amount of scripture and that I do not have the time or space to include every passage that figures into this matter.  Nor is it my fault that you are adding to scripture as you have done to several of these posts discussing this matter.  Nor is my answer my own and not the answer of scripture simply because you do not know God's law which defines in some detail how this stuff works.

I was not going to answer you at all until I finish answering Ron because that answer will fill in a lot of the gaps you have in your own understanding of these matters.  However, work and other personal matters were making progress on that answer slow, and then my laptop, which had been on its last legs anyway decided that I no longer needed to see what it was doing.  When the video display quit entirely and I could no longer use the machine even with an external monitor I had to buy a new machine sooner than planned, and begin the work of setting it up and transferring everything over in a more difficult manner than if I had both machines running together.  It took me three weeks to complete this and I have spent the last week getting back into this study.

Watch for my answer to Ron; there will be at least two more parts in it, and it will be very long since there is so much scripture being ignored by every in this discussion. 

I provide scripture to show why I am interpreting a passage as I do.  I base my interpretation on a very broad knowledge of scripture, not simply one or two verses cherry picked because they can easily be twisted to "prove" what I already believe, and I find that I often must change my beliefs to agree with scripture as I seek further scriptural proof for what I believe.  I don't know how you handle these matters but it certainly appears that you ignore much of what scripture says, and much of what I write since you throw back at me many other verses that say the same thing I have already said to you.  Case in point, 1 Corinthians 5:18, and 19, except that I used Davids words in Psalms, not Paul's quotation of those words. 

It is very common in Christianity to think that Paul and the other New Testament writers presented something new and it has no relationship at all to the Old Testament.  Such a belief only proves widespread and unjustifiable ignorance in the church.  It also shows the lengths people will go to in order to provide self-justification for their sins.  Your quote above from Colossians 2 using the NIV wording also shows this.  Those translators know that the "handwriting of the law" is not the written code as they chose to translate that passage.  This was a specific idiom used in Greek courts in reference to the decree of judgment written by a judge at the end of a trial.  In our courts today if it were a criminal matter this would be the sentence handed down by the judge or if it is a civil matter it is called a judgment.  It is not the mosaic code.  Even the SDA Bible Commentary acknowledges this in volume 7 on page 204 where it is defined as the bond written up when a person owes a debt they cannot pay and is sold into bond servitude, but that it the mosaic code is now the most popular teaching among SDAs as well.

Everything Paul wrote made reference to the Old Testament, most specifically the portions commonly called law today (both Jesus and Paul make reference to the Psalms as law so we use a different definition today than they did then) and used those as proof of the work Jesus had done at the cross or was doing in an on-going basis today in the church and the world, both as work he did personally and as work he was accomplishing through the use of his body (the church).  If you do not know which Old Testament passages are being referred to by Paul (or any other New Testament writer) at any given time, and if you do not know the context of that Old Testament passage you do not know the context of what Paul was saying.  Adding your own interpretation of Paul's word as is done regularly by pastors and theologians of all denominations including this one is adding to the scriptures.  That is a sin.

So then the text which says our sins are not counted against us is Psalm 32:1,2 and Paul quotes that in Romans 4:8 and 2 Corinthians 5:18, 19.  You have a lot of catching up to do because this is context of which you seem to be completely unaware and also seem to be unwilling to include in your understanding when someone calls it to your attention.  This would seem to be why you and pnatt have been sniping back and forth both quoting texts that deal with the matter, but neither one being willing to include that information in his own interpretation.  The Bible is not contradicting itself, but anyone with no real biblical knowledge watching the two of you trying to force your own understanding on the other would think that the Bible is nothing but contradictions because neither of you follows the Bible.  You both try to force it to support your own beliefs.

The mosaic code is not just ritual.  It defines sin in some considerable detail, but not exhaustively, and it defines the procedures for restoration of both the sinner and the victim in considerable detail as well.  Because Adventists, along with other Christians refuse to study the law they are ignorant of these details and have no clue how any of this really works.  God follows his law and never breaks it or eliminates portions of it, so it is by the study of this law that we learn how these things work.

 

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”.

 

^NAS Romans 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.

 

^NKJ Hebrews 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.

 

^KJV Romans 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.

Here in this post which immediately followed the previous one, at first glance it would seem you are continuing or repeating  the same argument so I answer them both together.  However there is a different perspective presented here.  Again, it is a matter of you not knowing the law in these matters so having no clue how this stuff works, but in part it is also an issue of semantics and you don't like the terminology I used.  Nothing wrong with that because if you are not using the same definitions I am the very fact of my saying the sin is justified is a serious problem. 

Normally when a person says he is justified for committing a sin it is a statement that it was ok to commit that sin.  That is not what I was saying.  That kind of justification of sin is always wrong and is a sin in and of itself.  There is only one legal way to justify a sinner and that is to pay the full restitution for his sin.  The law provides for a man to justify himself, just as Ron says, provided his debt (sin is always reckoned as a debt) is not so large that the man cannot pay the penalty himself.  Full restitution, depending upon other circumstances involved in the sin, will always vary between 120% and 500%. 

Since God's law demands a perfect life and by a single sin we have created a debt to God so large we cannot repay it since we cannot create a new life, much less five new lives.  Because we cannot repay this debt we are in need of a redeemer.  The only way a redeemer can justify us before the law is to pay this entire debt.  According to the law of sin offerings (Leviticus 4 - 6) the full restitution must be paid before we can present our sacrifice for sin to God.  According to the verse you quoted from Romans 4 this is the death of Jesus that paid the sins, but it was the resurrection that justified us.  The resurrection is represented by the wave sheaf offering which occurs the day after the Sabbath of the week of the Feast of Unleavened bread.  To fulfill this offering Jesus presented himself before the throne of God at the time the priest was waving this sheaf before the veil on resurrection morning, presenting himself to God as the wave sheaf and making certain his sacrifice was accepted before God's throne of judgment. 

At this time God declared all restitution for all sin for all time to be paid in full.  I know this sounds like heresy, but that is because so much of church teaching has always not been biblical, and also because you and I are limited by time and cannot see things as God does.  Hebrews 4:3 tells us that all these works were complete from the foundation of the world.  To understand this we have to recognize a number of  things about God.  God is not bound by time.  God created time and everything that is supposed to happen within it.  It all happens according to his plan.  I know SDAs do not believe this and because I was raise an SDA and trained in their schools I know all the arguments and the thousands of words used to explain away the Bible texts that tell us this very thing.  I even believed those arguments myself for a very long time until I decided that God knows what he means and doesn't need us to teach him how to use the language of men, and that maybe I should be taking him at his word.

The Hebrew language gives us some internal structural clue as to how to think of this and understand it.  This language only has two tenses, a past tense and a tense that combines present and future.  Anything that is a work in progress can then also be seen according to this linguistic understanding as already complete.  Joseph gives us some further understanding of this  in Genesis 41 where he explained the purpose of God's law of double witness to Pharaoh.  In verse 32 he said, "³² The reason the dream was given to Pharaoh in two forms is that the matter has been firmly decided by God, and God will do it soon."  The King James uses wording we are more used to, "it is because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass."  So once God establishes something it will happen and all we can do it heed the warning and prepare.  We cannot prevent it, although history shows we can sometimes delay it.  Usually that means the consequences will only be much worse for us once it does happen.  Because God had established this thing in his eyes it had already happened.  From the perspective of Joseph and Pharaoh it still needed to play out over the next 14 years.  God sees the entire plan of Salvation in exactly the same way.  It has been fully established, meaning fully completed, but you and I are bound by time and must live this thing out.  From our perspective it is far from complete and much of it has yet to happen.

The entire Hebrew economy and law is a prophecy of the plan of salvation.  It is very detailed and SDAs know few of the details.  In the eyes of God it is all complete already because he established it from the foundation of the world.  You and I are still living this out and can only understand how it works if we study the entire plan, not just the bits and pieces that agree with our flawed understanding of the things of God.  That plan includes justifying all sin (sinners) by paying their full restitution at the cross.  It may be that there is still more involved in the actual payment of that restitution, but the cross established Jesus full intent in this matter.  The fact that he created the entire universe in the beginning established his ability to do this.

Edited September 25, 2015 by Myron
add final conclusion

[Myron]

 Sammie, there is something else I meant to include and must add to the previous post.  It was addressed in part by Robert in the following post although he also shows a great deal of misunderstanding because he wants to look at a few scriptures instead of everything the scripture says on the matter.  (We all do this to some extent.  I am not condemning anyone with these constant reminders.  I am simply reminding us of facts we must never forget, especially in regards to our own Bible study.)

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. "

 

You pointed to the wording of Hebrews 10:10 used in one particular translation and said, "See, this is talking about sanctification."  It's not that simple, not that easy, and I will not let you off with that statement. 

¹⁰ By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Something that is sanctified is something that is set apart for a special purpose.  I believe that is what Paul is speaking of here, but it is possible I am mistaken.  After all, I learned long ago that when speaking of Hebrew concepts one must usually consider all the meanings of the associated Hebrew word at once.  Thus ruach does not mean either spirit, wind or breathe, it means all three of them at once.  The concepts cannot really be separated as we do with English words.  Paul was an expert in Hebrew law (and well trained in the laws of Greece and Rome) and thought as the Hebrews did.  Where the rest of us today know anything about law we think of it in the way the Greeks, Romans and later the church did.  These are the bases for our modern law systems.  We do not naturally think in the Hebrew way and most of us, preachers included, know next to nothing about Hebrew law and philosophy.  This greatly limits our interpretations.

So Paul could be speaking also of the process of sanctification, but that is not the only or even the primary way in which this verse is to be interpreted.  We were sanctified by being set apart.  Paul spoke of this same setting apart in Ephesians 1:4 saying,

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

In Romans 4 he speaks in a bit more detail about the processes involved and what happens before God's law the moment he sets us apart through justification. 

¹⁷ (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Abraham was not righteous.  We see a number of examples after this time where he showed tremendous lack of faith at the very least and maybe even crossed the line into sin with some of his recorded acts.  But he was called righteous before the law because God justified him.  Here we should look at two other definitions of sanctified.  The first was simply being set apart, which happened before the foundation of the world.  The second definition is being actually pure before the law.  Either you have not yet sinned, ever in your life so the law considers you righteous, or the full restitution for your sins has been paid in full so the law considers you righteous. 

For us mortal humans this is simply a matter of law, and not a matter of reality.  We know that even though a new born baby has not sinned as most of us are able to understand the matter, but we know it will sin.  From God's view, because the baby was conceived mortal it has touched a dead body, thus it has sinned, but this is an esoteric view well beyond the understanding of most people.  So from the perspective of most people that child is not yet a sinner, but we know it will be.  It is not actually sanctified in terms of being unable or unwilling to sin, but since it has not yet sinned in the eyes of the law it is sanctified.  This same thing applies to me if I have somehow managed to repay my full sin debt or if a redeemer has paid it for me.  In the eyes of the law I am now sanctified and made holy, but we all know that at some point, probably sooner rather than later I will sin again.  But because God is no longer crediting my sins to my account I am still seen as sanctified in the eyes of the law.

The final definition applies to those who after the second coming have received the glorified body and will never sin again.  They are actually righteous and fully holy (sanctified) as a result of their completed purification process, yet Hebrews 4 said this was completed from the foundation of the world (because God had already established it.)  All of this was accomplished once for all when Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected 3 days later, yet Hebrews 4 tells us it was all completed before the foundation of the world.  It all depends upon your perspective from your place in time.

[Myron]

I have shown you a verse that says directly that we were born again through the resurrection of our Lord. But you simply give me a narration of John 3, combined verses together and concluded that Jesus told Nicodemus that by believing he is born again.  Sorry, but I don't think that is acceptable for me.

Samie, I showed you specific verses for the things I showed to you and you didn't like that either.  Your interpretation of one verse of scripture is not enough to prove you right on anything.  Pnatt was right

What Jesus said to Nicodemus applies to all. The life and death of Jesus and hence His resurrection is for all. Like us, Nicodemus was born again when our Lord was resurrected.  Had Jesus not died and lived again, then we all have no hope of eternal life.

I have already explained this elsewhere. The true believers are the overcomers of evil with good.

^KJV John 16:33  . . .  I have overcome the world

 

^KJV John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

 

^KJV 1 John 5:4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

 

^NKJ Romans 8:37 Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.

All were given the chance of enjoying eternal life; all were written in the Book of Life. But only those who have overcome evil with good will enjoy eternal life with the Father and the Son because only their names will not be blotted out from the Book of Life.

All were not simply given a chance or many of the prophecies of both the Old Testament and the New Testament will simply be God's word returning to him void, which makes him a liar.  Like all other Christians, Adventists have no problem making God out to be a liar so they can hold on to their unbiblical doctrines.  They also, like you, really like bringing one verse to the table, building an entire theology around that one verse and claim that their man-made theology is biblical and explains all because of that one verse, while they actively ignore all other scripture that is brought into the discussion.  Of course, no one admits this is what they are doing and that an interpretation of a single text is NOT biblical where it is actively ignoring everything else the bible says on the matter. 

The theology you are teaching here is Samie-made and has nothing to do with scripture except that you have desperately searched the scriptures in an attempt to find something that will justify it, and you found this one verse and ignore everything else in a vain attempt to prove that the rest of us do not have biblical support for our own beliefs.  I am not claiming that pnatt's beliefs or my own are any more valid than yours.  We are human and just as prone to misinterpretation as you are, but both of us have brought multiple texts to this discussion and have looked for ways to reconcile apparent differences between them all, and have not denied the validity of the one text you keep bringing back.

I admire the apparent change of direction you seem to be making by the above post.  It does show a greater range of thought than you had demonstrated previously, but it also shows you still refuse to consider this stuff in the context of every word that proceeds from the mouth of God and prefer to hang on to your man-made doctrine rather than believe the word of God. 

In the following post you give an excellent explanation of your beliefs and it contains considerable truth, but it is not entirely true and you ignore the logical conclusion of such truth in order to hang on to the doctrine of the sovereignty of man over God (we do not call it this because doing so would openly place us in opposition to God and will make our lies from the pulpits so painfully obvious that even we cannot support them; but we love the veneer of truth we place on our lies.)

 

Without the life, death and resurrection of our Lord, we all - Adam & Eve and all their descendants - are doomed, spiritually dead, in God's sight. That is why the Father sent the Bread of Life to this world to give it life (John 6:33), because the world is dead, spiritually dead.  Unless first made alive, the spiritually dead cannot do any spiritual act, in the same manner that the physically dead cannot do any physical act.  It is sin that caused spiritual death, because sin separates man from God, and apart from Him Who is our Life, we all are spiritually dead.  The spiritually dead need to be attached to Him and only then can the spiritually dead do spiritual acts like believing, deciding to be baptized, repenting, etc.

It was on the cross where we were attached to the Body our Lord. The attaching was done by God through Christ, the Head of the body. When He died, we were with Him; when He rose from the grave, we were resurrected together with Him, born again into a living hope, converted from sinner to saint, justified by the faith of the Son of God, sanctified through the offering of His body on the cross, reconciled to God, pardoned or forgiven from all sin - past, present, future, empowered to overcome evil with good being attached to Him Who is our Strength, given faith so that we can please Him Who works in us both to will and to do His good pleasure, ushered into the New Covenant and made members of the family of God.  All this is all by grace, not an iota of our participation. This is the Past Tense of Salvation, the first dimension of the Gospel.

Now that we are spiritually alive, we can do spiritual acts like believing, repenting, etc.  This is all overcoming evil with good.  Believing is overcoming the evil of unbelief, repenting is overcoming the evil of being impenitent, etc.  We do this in the Present Tense of Salvation, the 2nd dimension of the Gospel.  We can because we are attached to Him Who is our Strength for overcoming evil with good.  It is not then a question of inability but one of refusal, if one does not overcome evil with good.

This is fine as far as it goes but every bit of it can easily be called into question by the lack of scriptural reference in it.  So far all you have done is show me what Samie believes, not that any of this is true.  It does not matter at this point how much truth this contains; as presented it is only Samie's opinion.  I have been rightly called on not providing the scriptural proof for what I say, and I have no problem with that because I call for such proof all the time, but I understand the laziness and the assumptions that my audience knows scripture well enough that I feel I should not have to provide the exact text.  However, it is always necessary to provide the proof that these thoughts are God's, not mine, and that I am properly interpreting God's word.

Now, in that interpretation of this subject it is necessary to note Jesus statement:

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.  John 10:10

This shows us that in God's view there are degrees of life.  This includes both physical life and spiritual life. This is also shown by the already referenced symbolism of being born again.  Here again we have a translation issue that greatly masks the meaning of this symbol.  The Greek terminology in John 3 is properly translated begotten from above.  The Bible translators have used the term begotten rather sparingly, and the term is so little used in English that few really know what it means other than that it refers to the father's role in the reproductive cycle.  Stephen Jones likes to say the difference between being begotten by the father and birthed by the mother is about 9 months.  In Greek the word genao is used for both and you must determine by context which is mean.  If it is referring to the father and his role it means conception; if it is referring to the mother it means bringing forth, or giving birth.  Since Jesus said you must be begotten from above he is making reference to the role of our Father in heaven and thus this is a matter of conception. 

On a side issue, I have been accused in the past of showing very effectively that abortion is not a sin because the Bible standard for the beginning of life is birth, and the breath in our lungs.  That was not my purpose in the lesson which I gave at the time that accusation was made and I was offended by the accusation, but in a since it is true.  But that issue does not end there.  I have since encountered others who claim this as the biblical standard as well.  It is very easy to see for any who look at the creation story in the original language, which we will do later, and who are actually honest with themselves.  Few Christians, SDAs included, have such honesty.  However, I have for many years taught that God uses multiple definitions for many things and the context of a passage will tell us which definition we are to be using.  I can easily prove from scripture that life does not begin until we take that first breath, but I believe I can also prove from scripture that life begins at conception, although I am less confident in my competence to do so, and the proof will not be near as obvious.  Yet this idea of being "born again" which you reference in the above post is indispensable to that proof.  Then again, there are many truths in this idea of being begotten from above that we choose to ignore when it comes to the spirit within us and its viability.

We must be begotten from above to be considered alive spiritually, yet as I demonstrated above this is a reference to spiritual conception, not spiritual birth.  So to understand this process fully and completely we must look at the exact analogy God used here as well as some other texts.  Conception occurs at the microscopic level and in a hidden place so no one can actually point to the time when anyone is begotten from above.  No individual is ever aware of the own conception, and unless someone has an egg and sperm under a microscope and is viewing the exact moment of penetration no one else can ever pinpoint the exact moment of another person's conception either.  Nor is the organism formed able to sustain this life.  It must be incubated in a hidden place inside its mother for a considerable amount of time (9 months) and even after it comes forth into the world and is apparent to the world it really is not able to sustain itself for many more years.

Christians quite intentionally misinterpret this symbolism on a regular basis, along with misusing the words of Paul and John (Romans 7:14-25, 1 John 3:9).  Yes, that which is within me cannot sin because it is of its Father which is in heaven, but guess which one is in control at the time of this conception!  Christians have long taught that we are born (or conceived) fully mature when we are begotten from above, and from that moment forward we are responsible for our own salvation.  The very analogy itself is the proof of this falsehood.  Not only do I have no control over my mother's body while I am in her womb but once I exit the womb and become apparent to the world she still exercises near total control over me and does for many years even as she trains me to be independent.  Following the biblical patterns I stay under her control until my 12th year when I then enter my father's business as an apprentice to learn obedience to his ways by discipline.  But we are not yet ready to move on to an examination of that step yet.

You said,

Now that we are spiritually alive, we can do spiritual acts like believing, repenting, etc.  This is all overcoming evil with good.  Believing is overcoming the evil of unbelief, repenting is overcoming the evil of being impenitent, etc.  We do this in the Present Tense of Salvation, the 2nd dimension of the Gospel.  We can because we are attached to Him Who is our Strength for overcoming evil with good.  It is not then a question of inability but one of refusal, if one does not overcome evil with good.

Clearly from the analogy God used it is now nearly so simple.  Yes we are now spiritually alive, but does an embryo really have an ability to refuse anything or not?  Does even a new born baby have this ability?  What about the 5 year old toddler?  There is a reason God used these analogies and we are extremely remiss if we refuse to study them and apply the lessons learned.  At what point do we really say the sinner is spiritually alive and responsible for his own actions in these matters?  Jesus said, "I came that they might have life and have it more abundantly."  He was speaking to people that had life.  At what point is it that we can call that life abundant?  The first, and maybe most important clues come from the creation story.  Since we are looking at a new creation man (2 Cor 5:17, Gal 6:15, Eph 4:24, Col 3:10) perhaps we should look at the creation story for clues.  

In the creation story we read:

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.  Genesis 2:7

Here the word translated breath is neshama.  Usually the Hebrew word translated as breath or spirit is ruach, which means breath, spirit and wind.  The word neshama, although similar is distinctly different.  It means breath, spirit and intellect.  The Hebrew language is different from English in that these three things are not separate definitions of the same word.  Instead, the word always in some way includes all three definitions every time it appears and the three concepts cannot be separated. 

I have read that the word neshama only appears one other place in scripture, a statement that is always made to show just how special this word is in this instance.  However, that statement is false.  The word appears many times in scripture and 17 times it is translated in the KJV as breath, 3 times as blast, twice as spirit, once as inspiriation and once as souls.  The Gesenius Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon entry for this word says it is the spirit of God imparting life and wisdom.  Thus the abundant life is a matter of wisdom more than anything else. Physically God breaths his breath into our lungs, thus giving us life at birth; spiritually God breaths his wisdom into us giving us life at the quickening.  It is this which separates us from the lower animals, which have souls (nephesh -- improperly translated as life in Gen 9:4, Lev 17:11, 14, Deut 12:23) but which do not have a spiritual life (intellect)  They only possess ruach (spirit, breath, wind) and not neshama (spirit, wind, intellect) and thus although they have souls they are not referred to as "living souls" in the Bible.

Shall we read abundant life as meaning spiritual life?  From the definition of the word neshama I believe this to be a reasonable assumption.  Do you know of any Christian that instantly becomes supremely wise simply because he/she has professed Jesus as his/her personal savior?  I don't.  I do know a lot of Christians who are among the stupidest and most ignorant people on the planet and who are very proud of that ignorance, but yet with real faith profess Jesus Christ as their personal savior and therefore are on the road to salvation (Romans 10:10).  So, either these people are not really alive spiritually (which means they cannot profess Jesus as their savior -- you are very right about that) or there is some higher level of life and personal responsibility which they have yet to achieve.  You are calling this rejection of God.  God has a different way of speaking of this problem. 

In Hosea 4:6 God says,

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.
Because you have rejected knowledge,
I also will reject you from being My priest.
Since you have forgotten the law of your God,
I also will forget your children.

I have often paraphrased this as, "My people are dying for lack of knowledge."  This is a very simplistic equating of destruction with death.  It is not entirely invalid, especially since just as there are differing levels of life and death according to God's definition(s) of these terms there are varying levels of destruction.  Yet because somethings must first be destroyed to make way for life and to prevent death, the two terms are not equal and cannot be freely interchanged in that way.  Still, in this instance the ignorance is destroying life in God's people. 

Because the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23) we should have no difficulty seeing that ignorance is in some way related to sin.  Just as destruction is not necessarily death ignorance is not sin, yet ignorance left unchecked will always lead to sin, will always result in sin.  It will always diminish our life and bring destruction.  Why is this important?  We are all born ignorant, and ignorance is something that can only be overcome through long and often rather painful processes.  Did God give Adam the full knowledge of God at his creation or was it the capacity to learn wisdom that God breathed into Adam at that time?  If Paul and John are to be believed the spirit breathed into us cannot sin, yet Adam clearly had a capacity to sin; some form of ignorance remained. 

Pnatt questioned me on a post I made in another thread on this site where I ignorantly vomited the line I hear so often from others about the glorified body being unable to sin.  http://clubadventist.com/forums/topic/62345-without-a-mediator/#comment-684346, With that new body we will have the strength to withstand any temptation that may come along, but in this mortal body it is impossible for us to avoid all sin.  Adam was created with that incorruptible body that we will be given in the restoration of all things when we are adopted as fully mature sons of God.  There are two parallel ceremonies in the types and shadows which represent this occurrence and these are the Feast of Tabernacles and the consecration of the priests.  Once we see the antitype of these rites we will have the spiritual, incorruptible bodies promised to us as seen as the Zadok (Melchizedek) priest's clothing in Ezekiel 44 and which Paul discusses as tabernacles in 2 Corinthians 5:1-10.  So until we have grown up enough to receive these bodies we continue fighting the apparently losing battle with the flesh (Romans 7:14-25) and because our neighbor's "failure" is so obvious, and because we have never bothered to study the scriptures and learn how this stuff really works we condemn our brother for his "obvious failure" rather than give him the encouragement to walk according to the spirit instead of the flesh. 

You start with a good understanding of scriptural teaching on this matter then go to "good" Christian and SDA non-biblical teaching that man is sovereign over God. On this matter Dwight Nelson openly called a prophecy of God a lie from his pulpit in one of his sermons in the series "The Chosen" in 2008.  No one called him on this because all he did was openly state and agree with standard SDA doctrine.  Here Dr. Nelson said he was going to hold God's feet to the fire on a specific promise found in Isaiah 49.

Can plunder be taken from warriors,
    or captives be rescued from the fierce?

²⁵ But this is what the Lord says:

“Yes, captives will be taken from warriors,
    and plunder retrieved from the fierce;
I will contend with those who contend with you,
    and your children I will save.

Then Dr. Nelson said, "I know God cannot really do this because he cannot violate my children's freewill to act against him if they so choose.  I know he cannot really do this but I am going to hold his feet to the fire on this one."  Really?  Are we going to allow our leaders to openly call God a liar from their pulpits like this?  And yet from the beginning we have tolerated this from our leaders and prophets. 

In other posts in this thread Ron is upset with me for "not providing the texts that prove God must save everyone" even after a long discussion of the law of Jubilee which is the definitive text on this matter.  We so insist on our sovereignty over God in these matters that it is much more acceptable for a pastor to openly call God a liar from his pulpit (true he did not use the word "liar" but that should not matter to us) than it is for us to admit that God can do what he says he will do or to acknowledge the entire educational process by which he will accomplish this thing. 

²² For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.  1 Corinthians 15

 "All" means the same thing in both cases.  You cannot get anymore simple than this.  Nor is it, "All are given the opportunity but few will take it," as you are teaching.  Paul's words are specific.  All will be made alive.  Nor is this a matter of bringing them alive just long enough to force an admission that God is right immediately before squishing them under Jesus feet forever, whether by eternal torment or eternal annihilation. 

In Romans 14:11 Paul says,

For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

 Then Adventists (and most other Christians as well) like to force their own fleshly interpretation on this passage claiming that this will be a forced and grudging confession.  The Greek word used here is exomologeo which means to acknowledge openly and joyfully, to celebrate, to give praise, or to profess that one will do something.  Paul was simply quoting Isaiah 45:23 which is somewhat more pointed in the English and considerably more pointed in the Hebrew.

I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

The Hebrew word translated as swear is shaba and is a most solemn oath and vow requiring multiple witnesses (usually at least seven) and is essentially the same as an oath of allegiance.  By this oath these people are all saying to God, "You are my king and I will always obey you."  You do not get this kind of an oath of eternal gratitude and obedience and then kill the person who gave it unless you are the most evil and capricious being in existence.  SDA doctrine insists that these acknowledgements are grudging and forced.  Neither of these words holds that connotation and such an interpretation cannot be forced on these verses with anything approaching validity.

God has said this word has gone out of his mouth in righteousness, and he has said that these people will gladly and willingly agree to serve him in righteousness.  He did not stutter; he did not equivocate.  God uses this same oath formula in Isaiah 55:11 where he says,

Seek the Lord while he may be found;
    call on him while he is near.
⁷ Let the wicked forsake their ways
    and the unrighteous their thoughts.
Let them turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on them,
    and to our God, for he will freely pardon.

⁸ “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
    neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
⁹ “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
    so are my ways higher than your ways
    and my thoughts than your thoughts.
¹⁰ As the rain and the snow
    come down from heaven,
and do not return to it
    without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish,
    so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
¹¹ so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
    It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
    and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

It does not say, "Let some of the wicked forsake their ways and the unrighteous their thoughts."  Again there is no stuttering or equivocation.  This entire passage is speaking of the restoration of all things.  Jesus also speaks of this in John 17:6-12 where he tells the Father that he had not lost any of those given to him except the one who was already "doomed to destruction" (Heb: charam which indicates a complete and total devotion to God for any purpose to which God finds necessary to use that person or thing) according to previous prophecy and done so that those scriptures could be fulfilled.

 

I will stop here even though I know well the objections you are now likely to bring to this discussion.  I can assure you that hose objections will involve either the same kind of cherry picking to make carnal (fleshly) interpretation possible as I pointed out early in this post, including the ignoring of much of what God says on the subject or involves calling God a liar as I have pointed out in the latter portion of this post.  Perhaps we should start spending more time examining every word that proceeds from the mouth of God and finding the misconceptions in our own thinking that account for the seeming contradictions we choose to ignore or reject rather than picking the few texts that appear to support our own narrow views and arguing vigorously against anything else, no matter how much scripture is given to support those opposing views.  None of us has all the truth, but those who refuse to consider any opposing or tangent view which is well supported by scripture are most certainly not lovers of the truth.

[phkrause]

In the March 2014 issue of "Signs of the Times," Doug Batchelor has an article called: "God's Contracts," that pretty much sums up my opinion of Old & New Covenants.

I will post it here:

God's Contracts by Doug Batchelor
A number of years ago, I conducted meetings in a rented auditorium in New York City. Prior to the meetings my team members and I met with the owner of the building and negotiated the price, the payment schedule, and various other issues concerning the terms of the rental. Once we had a written agreement, the owner signed, we signed—and we had a contract. Another word for contract is covenant, and the Bible talks a lot about covenants. Perhaps you’ve heard some Christians say, “We’re no longer under the old covenant.” Often, what they mean is that Christians no longer have to keep God’s law, especially the Ten Commandments. We need to examine what the Bible says about covenants. We’ll begin with what it says in the Old Testament. The old covenant At Mount Sinai, God made a covenant with the Israelites. “If you obey me fully and keep my covenant,” He said, “then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession” (Exodus 19:5). Notice that the people were to obey God’s covenant. The covenant God wanted them to obey was His laws. While this included all the laws that He gave the Israelites on Sinai, including the ceremonial laws, the most succinct moral expression of those laws was the Ten Commandments. That’s why, toward the end of his life, Moses told the Israelites that God had “declared to you his covenant, the Ten Commandments” (Deuteronomy 4:13). God was the first party to this covenant and the Israelite nation was the second party. The Israelites said, “We will do everything the Lord has said” (Exodus 19:8). So the covenant was this: God gave His laws, and the people agreed to keep them. This is what the New Testament refers to as “the old covenant.” The new covenant The first person to speak about the new covenant was Jeremiah. He wrote, “ ‘The time is coming,’ declares the LORD, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah’ ” (Jeremiah 31:31). Some people claim that the old covenant was for Old Testament Jews while the new covenant is for New Testament Gentiles. But God said that this new covenant would be for “the house of Israel” and for “the house of Judah.” In fact, nowhere does the Bible speak of God making a covenant with Gentiles. Rather, Gentiles could be grafted into the covenant He made with Israel (Romans 11:13–21). So everyone who wants to be saved must become a spiritual Jew. God said that this new covenant “will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt. . . . I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people” (Jeremiah 31:32, 33). The difference between the covenants Now please notice this: the essential difference between the covenants is that the new covenant was to be written on the heart. The writer of the book of Hebrews comments on Jeremiah’s statement about the new covenant. He said, “If there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.” So the reason God had to establish a new covenant with His people is that something was wrong with the first one. Was God responsible for the flaw in the old covenant? Of course not! The next verse reveals the problem: “God found fault with the people” (Hebrews 8:7, 8). Remember that every covenant must have two parties, and Hebrews says that the party that broke the first covenant was not God but the people. They had told Moses that “we will do everything the Lord has said.” Yet scarcely had a month gone by when they made and worshiped a golden calf (Exodus 32:1–6)! And, unfortunately, much of the Old Testament is a record of the Israelites’ refusal to obey God’s laws. The problem and God’s solution The problem was neither with the old covenant nor with the law on which it was based. The problem was with the people—their failure to keep God’s laws. And what was God’s solution? Both Jeremiah and Hebrews answer that question: “ ‘This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,’ declares the LORD. ‘I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts’ ” (Jeremiah 31:33; italics added). So when was Jeremiah’s prophecy about a new covenant fulfilled? Hebrews says it was fulfilled in the New Testament era as a result of Jesus’ ministry in the heavenly sanctuary (Hebrews 8:1–6). Some Christians claim that this passage proves that the law on which the old covenant was based was done away with. However, notice what Jeremiah and Hebrews both said: “The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. . . . I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts” (Hebrews 8:8–10; italics added). So what law was Jeremiah talking about? The Ten Commandments! The new covenant doesn’t do away with the law. It writes the law on the mind and heart! The law is just as essential under the new covenant as it was under the old covenant! Heart obedience in the New Testament Some people claim that the essential difference between the old and new covenants is that the old covenant wasn’t written on the hearts of God’s people before Christ, but it is written on the hearts of Christians after Christ. According to this line of reasoning, the New Testament era is the first time God would write His laws on the minds and hearts of His people. However, this totally overlooks God’s plan in the Old Testament. The book of Deuteronomy is a book of law. And the words heart and hearts appear 48 times in Deuteronomy (in the King James Version). Fourteen of these are specific commands and admonitions for the Israelites to obey God’s laws from the heart, and several others warn of the consequences of not obeying Him from the heart. In Deuteronomy 6:6, God said, “These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts,” and in 11:18, He said, “Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds.” These verses show us that heart obedience was as much God’s plan under the old covenant as it is under the new covenant. When God announced through Jeremiah that a day was coming when His people would obey His laws from the heart, it wasn’t that He hadn’t planned for heart obedience under the old covenant. It’s that He could scarcely find it. How to experience the new covenant Heart obedience has always been God’s plan for His people. It’s the only kind that counts. But you and I can’t conjure up this heart obedience by ourselves. Our natural hearts rebel against His laws. To obey God’s laws from the heart, we must allow His Spirit to transform our minds so that we love His laws. Fortunately, this heart experience is very easy to obtain. Just ask God for it. Say this simple prayer: “God, please send Your Spirit into my heart to change my thoughts and emotions so that I love Your laws and want to obey them.” And the good news: the moment He places His Spirit in your heart, you are guaranteed a place in His eternal kingdom!

[Wingnut]

My only question regarding D Bachelor's explanation of the difference between OC and NC where he basically says that the difference is that the 10C are written on the heart instead of stone is this....

If you have the 10C without Christ, you have nothing.

Where does a personal relationship with Christ come into the explanation?

I believe any explanation of the NC which does not have Christ at the core, is flawed.

Making humans who will keep the 10C is NOT God's priority.

Making humans who will believe in, love and obey Jesus, receive His Grace, and live by the 1050 commandments He gave, is so much more than just having 10C written on the heart.

[Kevin H]

I disagree that the ordination of women is an old covenant against and new covenant for and we sided with the Old covenant. When it says that Sarah was Abraham's half sister, daughter of his father but not of his mother, yes it could be his biological half sister. However, we have also learned that in Abraham's culture, rich men did not want their daughters to just be property. So when their daughter married the father of the groom would adopt the to be daughter-in-law. The legal term for this was this lady, who may not have had a biological connection to her husband has become his legal half sister, daughter of his father but not of his mother. Since Abraham came from a rich family this is likely the case. If this is the case then both the husband and wife in this legal relationship were equals and both parties had equal say in matters. And in places were we just read "Abraham" the Bible writer would have and in mind "Mr. and Mrs. Abraham" Also, Moses commanded both men and women to wear the tassels with a blue thread in it. In the ancient world this was the symbol that the wearer was an ordained Priest. A third point from the Old Covenant is that there are some Psalms written in a style that indicate that there were written for female priests who would lead out in the service using those psalms. And of course Jeremiah pictured God as so upset over male headship in Babylon that the sign for being called out of Babylon was a willingness to make up for this by being willing to have female headship. All of these are "Old Covenant"

[phkrause]

Here's a 2 part presentation by Pastor Batchelor on this subject

Doug Batchelor - Sabbath, Sunday And The New Covenant

 

 

[LifeHiscost]

On 11/21/2015 at 9:05 PM, Wingnut said:

 

Making humans who will believe in, love and obey Jesus, receive His Grace, and live by the 1050 commandments He gave, is so much more than just having 10C written on the heart.

Those 1050 commandments were from the law as given to Moses and were dealt with in this Word.

…16Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- 17things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.....Colossians 2

The Law written on the heart under the everlasting covenant is summarized in these two Commandments.

37Jesus replied, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’^e 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’^f 40The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.”....Matthew 22

And to be followed as practiced in the life of Christ.

…9"Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love. 10"If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love. 11"These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full.…John 15

God is Love!~Jesus saves!   

[Ron Amnsn]

15 hours ago, LifeHiscost said:

Those 1050 commandments were from the law as given to Moses and were dealt with in this Word.

…16Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- 17things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.....Colossians 2

Hello LHC.  According to the Jews, there are only 613 commandments in the Torah.  I think the 1050 commandments are the ones found in the New Testament, some of which are not found in God's Law of Moses, such as "Do this in remembrance of me".

I don't know what you mean by "dealt with in this Word".  You quote from Colossians 2:16-17, seemingly without regard for context.  And you quote from a Bible version that has inserted the word "mere" where the original Greek passage carries no such meaning.

The meaning that a person derives from the passage that you quoted depends largely on what assumptions you bring to the passage.  If you assume that someone was condemning the Colossians for behaving as you behave regarding food or drink and festivals, new moons, and Sabbath days you'll get one meaning from the passage.  But if you understand this passage within the context the whole letter and within the context of Paul's ministry you'll get an opposite meaning from the passage. 

According to the whole context, the Colossian believers were being judged for behaving as Jesus did.  There were those who had accused Jesus, "Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard;" (Matt 11:19).  The believers that Paul wrote to were also were being condemned by someone for eating and drinking while following God's Law of Moses as Jesus did.  We know that Paul himself endorsed the use of Old Testament Scripture for teaching people how to live (2Tim 3:16-17), so we know for sure that those who were troubling the Colossian congregation were not teaching Scripture.  Besides, Paul specifically says that the trouble makers were teaching "philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men." (v. 8)  Paul also testified, "I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets;" (Acts 24:14)  Jesus also lived in accordance with the Law and the Prophets, so those who follow Jesus will live that same way. (1John 2:6)  What Paul wrote in Colossians 2:16-17 would encourage a follower of Jesus to continue celebrating God's Feasts and Sabbaths with food and drink, just as Jesus did, in spite of the condemnation of the Ascetics in their community who believed that in order to be "spiritual" you had to deprive and punish the physical body.

A shadow provides an outline of an object.  When you remove the word "mere" that doesn't belong in the passage, it is easier to see that Paul was affirming what the Colossians already knew-- that God's Feasts provide an outline of the events pertaining to the actual life and ministry of Messiah.  Some of those events are still future.  But Paul wasn't simply saying, keep doing as Jesus did.  He was using words and phrases that powerfully show that Jesus actually was in substance those abstract things that the Ascetics supposedly valued.  Paul's whole treatise in Colossians 2 was a slam dunk scored against the Ascetics philosophy that was troubling the Colossian congregation.

On the other hand, if one chooses to interpret Colossians 2 as an argument against living as Jesus did (according to God's Law of Moses), you end up with a pathetic, self-contradictory passage that ends up making a total lie out of Paul's claim to believe "everything that is accordance with the Law and written in the Prophets."  If Paul was such a liar, why would we pay any attention to anything he says?

 

[Ron Amnsn]

Another of the New Testament commandments that is not found in the Law of Moses is this:
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets;" (Matt 5:17)

[LifeHiscost]

55 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Hello LHC.  According to the Jews, there are only 613 commandments in the Torah.  I think the 1050 commandments are the ones found in the New Testament, some of which are not found in God's Law of Moses, such as "Do this in remembrance of me".
On the other hand, if one chooses to interpret Colossians 2 as an argument against living as Jesus did (according to God's Law of Moses), you end up with a pathetic, self-contradictory passage that ends up making a total lie out of Paul's claim to believe "everything that is accordance with the Law and written in the Prophets." If Paul was such a liar, why would we pay any attention to what he says?

 

⁸ This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.

⁹ But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.....Titus 3

This is probably another Word considered "out of context" but I have no problem drawing Truth from it that is helpful to me in establishing a constant, loving relationship with Jesus. I have no burden to prove a point and if it is illogical to anyone trying to establish a closer relationship with Christ, I would suggest the best way to avoid controversy is to move to more acceptable points of faith, no offense meant.

BTW, I do see all of what is written in the Word as essential for anyone's eternal salvation, including that which I don't understand. That is a major reason why I trust in and accept the free gift of  the robe of Jesus' righteousness as my only hope for everlasting life.

²¹ And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.

²² But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet:

²³ And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry:.....Luke 15

God is Love!~Jesus saves! Hope your Sabbath is a

10 I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels....Isaiah 61