You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
A common response to the above question is “We don’t. Let’s just be biblical.” My response is that this sounds nice but is practically unworkable. If I were to ask someone if they believe in Jesus I would get an overwhelming response in the affirmative. But, if I asked those same folks the question, “Do you believe that Jesus is the one true God?” To this question I would get a far different response. The reason for this is that many folks who embrace Jesus do not embrace the fact that He is God in the flesh. To the question, “Do you trust in Jesus Christ alone to save you from your sins?” I would get an even smaller amount of affirmative responses. This makes it clear that doctrinal questions need clarifying comments if they are to be truly helpful. So, if I ask you what you believe and you say “I am just biblical—I believe what the Bible says” then you are simply begging the question. The moment you begin to answer my next question, “What do you think the Bible says?” you begin to define your “theological system.”
http://ids.org/pdf/nctbook.pdf
Like the author above, you all have probably asked people similar questions and get the answer, "I am soloscriptura" or the Bible only.
Definition of THEOLOGY
the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world
Another way to think of it is how one understands what the Bible says about God. How one understands the Old Testament and the New Testament, the Old Covenant and the New Covenant within the respective Old and New Testaments.
Offline
continued from above source
All individuals bring some biblical ideas with them when they seek to interpret a particular biblical text. A theological presupposition is a truth that someone is already convinced that the Bible teaches. I am convinced that the Bible teaches that God determines all things before they happen and that His determination is not based on what might happen in the future. So when I come across a verse of Scripture that could either affirm or deny this truth, I will always opt for the interpretation that supports my theological presupposition. If my theological presupposition is wrong then my interpretation will be wrong. When we say that we hold to a particular theological system, we are just giving our hearers a view of our theological presuppositions so that they can understand what we are already convinced Scripture says and what ideas (hopefully biblical ideas) we will be using to interpret particular verses in Scripture.
If all of Scripture is the word of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17) then it cannot contain any true contradictions, for a contradiction is a false statement and the God of heaven and earth cannot lie (Titus 1:2). If there can be no contradictions in the Bible then we must be able to harmonize all the parts of the Bible with each other. That is why we should expect the Bible to make sense from beginning to end. A system of theology is just someone’s or some group’s opinion as to how the Bible fits together from beginning to end.
Last edited by bob_2 (07-18-11 9:04 am)
Offline
continued from source above:
Consider the topic of “giving” as an example of the need for systematic thought when studying Scripture. When we study the subject of law in Scripture we need to clarify which law we are talking about. For the purposes of this article let’s talk about the Mosaic Law. How we view the purpose of the Mosaic Law is crucial to our understanding as to whether or not that law is still applicable to me today. Let’s take the specific law of tithing as an example. Should I or should I not be bound by the law of tithing today? This question is answered by my understanding of the purpose of the Mosaic Law today. I understand that the Mosaic Law is tied to the Old Covenant and that the Old Covenant came to an end at the cross (Luke 23:45, Hebrews 8:7-13, Galatians 4:21-31). Therefore, since the Old Covenant has come to an end the law of that covenant, the Mosaic Law, has also come to an end (Ephesians 2:14-16). So unless the law of Christ, the law in the New Covenant era, mentions the tithe (and it does not), I would assume that the law of the tithe is not binding on me. This understanding of Scripture that I also think of as “just being biblical” is part of the theological system that I believe is biblical. It is the view of the Mosaic Law and giving according to New Covenant Theology.
Offline
continued from the above source:
Everyone who reads and thinks about Scripture holds to some sort of a system of theology. Some are not aware that they hold to a system of theology. But it is impossible to not hold to a system of theology because every time you open your Bible to read, you think about what those Scriptures mean in relation to others you have read. You may do so without trying. You may do so and be totally inconsistent. But you do it. The important point that must always be kept in mind is that one must always be willing to reevaluate his theological presuppositions to see if they are truly biblical. One must always base his interpretation on the use of Scripture in context and not by imposing his theological system on the text. For it is always possible that the system is not biblical at a particular point. Our plea for the defense of a theological system is based on the fact that everyone, even those who claim to “just be biblical,” bring their theological presuppositions with them in their quest to interpret a particular passage of scripture.
The question is not, “Do you hold to a theological system or are you just biblical?” but rather, “Is your theological system biblical?”
In the unfolding of New Covenant Theology in recent years, good books have been written. But there still remains a need for a complete and balanced presentation of New Covenant Theology that is clear and concise. This book satisfies that need. It is only the first of many, but as the first, it fulfills the task of sketching out the system. Therefore, I recommend this book to you. It is my prayer that as you read and ponder about how God’s plan fits together, you will grow to love the God of Scripture in a deeper way than ever before.
Geoff Volker
Founder and Director of In-Depth Studies, 2006
Offline
Continued from the above source:
It’s game day! As you enter the crowded stadium, you buy a program that explains the overall plan for the big game. The program doesn’t provide every detail of the game, but it gives you enough information so you won’t be confused when the game begins.
After you enter the stadium and make your way to your seat, the first thing you notice is the field where the game will be played.
As you are reading your program, suddenly the pre-game preparation begins. The game has not yet begun as outlined in the program, but the players are gathered together on the appropriate sides of the field and they begin to warm up for the game. The pre-game preparation is vital to the success of the game, but it is not the game itself.
Finally the game begins. As the game progresses, someone comes to your seat from time to time and gives you additions to the program. These additions do not replace your program, but they provide more detailed information as the game progresses and are useful in understanding why things occur in the game the way they do. They help you to see more clearly what is happening at every point in the game. Soon, you have in your possession a large number of additions to the original program and as you sort through them, you realize that there has been no activity on the field for quite some time. Likewise, no one has come to your seat with more additions to the program in quite some time. Following a lengthy delay, you begin to wonder if the game is over. While musing about whether or not the game is finished, an announcer comes over the PA system proclaiming the start of the second half of the game. Such an announcement has peaked your interest because until that point you had no idea that the game was going to be played in two halves. The additions to the program you’ve received so far haven’t been clear enough to lead you to that conclusion.A short time after the start of the second half, someone comes to your seat and gives you one final addition to the program. It is only after you receive this final addition that you fully understand what the game is all about. What you understood in a limited way prior to receiving the final addition, you now understand fully and are able to make sense of both how the game is played and its intent. As you read the program in its fullness, you realize that the game is being played in two halves. The first half is finished and the second half is now underway. Now you understand that the first half was only the beginning of the game, not the entire game as you initially assumed. In fact, the first half is incomplete without the second half. Now it is clear to you that the first half cannot be understood correctly without the final addition to the program provided during the second half. It is the second half that brings the game to its conclusion.
* * *
What you just read is my favorite illustration for explaining how Scripture fits together or New Covenant Theology (NCT). We’ll return to this illustration with some explanation a bit later. ~ Steve Lehrer
Does this analogy help with the understanding of THEOLOGY and it's need in order to understand God's Word and what He is saying to us. I found the example a helpful one.
Last edited by bob_2 (07-18-11 9:49 am)
Offline
OK, before we go any further, what theological system do you have when you read the Bible and what system do tSDAs have???
Last edited by bob_2 (07-18-11 12:23 pm)
Offline
Bob_2,
Thank you for your invitation to comment on New Covenant Theology. As you know, I have studied the covenant(s) since 2004. I believe that God interacts with mankind through the covenant, and that the covenant provides a framework for our theology, or understanding of Who God is, and His purpose for mankind. You ask the question as to what my theology is. Briefly it is:
1. That God created this world in six days
2. That God instituted the Sabbath as a perpetual reminder to men that He is the Creator.
3. That God created men with free will, and in so doing even accepted the possibilities and consequences of sin.
4. That God has communicated with man through the prophets, who have written the Bible as the Word of God. This is to accept that God has also communicated with men through His Creation, through direct intervention and through the oral tradition -- all of which must be consistent with the written Word.
5. That Jesus, the Divine second Person of the Godhead, came to earth as a man, and died a sacrifice on Calvary to pay the penalty of the broken law, that men might be saved.
6. That Jesus is coming again and soon.
7. That we are now in the grand anti-typical Day of Atonement, with a special purpose to prepare a people to meet Him when He comes.
The Covenant is an important and parallel theme to the above. the promises of God are given as a formal agreement between the Father and the Son before creation of this world, and carrying the promises of salvation to mankind. The benefits (blessings) to mankind are given at the initiative and with the grace of God. This is commonly called the "New Covenant" and was given to Adam and Eve, to Abraham, and ratified by Jesus Christ on Calvary. Jesus is the Mediator of the New Covenant.
Mankind had a part in this covenant, in his belief and faith that God would fulfill His promises. Men must consent to the work of grace. Men must decide to crucify self, to put away sin, and to keep the law of God -- through the power of the grace of God.
As a corollary, I believe that Ellen G. White was chosen of God to give messages to the end time Remnant Church. Her writings are never to replace the accepted Word of God, but are a helpful commentary.
Further, the ten commandment law are "the covenant" as stated in several places in the Old Testament. The order and the liberty of God's entire universe is based on the boundaries established through this law. Bob, I know that this is different from your belief, and will accept that. In reading the first several posts in this thread, it seems that I am called to dialog with Steve Lehrer and Geoff Volker rather than with you.
The study of the covenant(s) is a very large study with many ramifications. It has seemed to me to be better to spend my time explaining on my website what I have found. I am glad to respond to specific questions or comments, but the website gives a much more complete picture.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Hubb, if you are trying to produce something to memorialize your retirement, last ditch effort, I will take it as such. I have read sections of your forum that is quoting directly of material by others. I do not insult you by suggesting that is not your position, by posting it I assume you do not have objections to those quotes, you may assume the same for me. If you feel your time is more well spent on your self interest I understand, but your complaint of this discussion waste away and are unable to answer the questions that early in the, hopefully discussion, you have made snap judgement, which if that is your objective, so be it. Heb 8:13 explains and nullifies your position. You claim one Covenant, the Bible claims two Covenants based on the promise given to Abraham. To suggest that a covenant must be made between Father and Son, is rediculous. The Godhead is three in one. They do not contradict each other, not do contracts need to remind them of their role of Salvation for man.
You cautioned me on my beliefs, cautioning that I should look at my errors. That is what we are attempting to discuss I thought. You seem to have figured it all out in a vacuum, without resistance from those that disagree with you. "Think for yourself, not by yourself", Hubb, is my advice.
When we look at final arguments about this topic, most will not care nor care about singularly gained positions, but those truly seeking truth will look for scholars backing positions proposed. I see absence of this in your desire to have an EVERLASTING COVENANT which is not Biblical.
Getting back to your position, it is Covenant Theology that sees no disconnect between an obsolete old covenant and the Everlasting Covenant, that is not conditional, but truly EVERLASTING, but conditional to the individual that does not accept what is offered in the New Covenant, SALVATION, which no other Covenant or Promise by itself can offer that accept the New Covenant.
I don't see you and I at odds, but I do see you feel you need to protect a position that the SDA Church believes. I am not out to save a Church's organizational HIERARCHY but am more fasinated how individuals are saved because there is no Collective Salvation for Jews or SDAs.
Offline
Here are Virtues and Vices of Christ's Law:
http://cranfordville.com/NTVirtureLists.html
http://cranfordville.com/NTViceLists.html
All directives Christ gave relative to His kingdom are valid, and what directives the Apostles uttered are what Christ's Law of the New Covenant is the Law of the New Covenant. The empowerment of the Spirit is what enables the Christian to keep them and rely on Christ our Advocate and Saviour.
Last edited by bob_2 (07-19-11 2:58 am)
Offline
Bob,
You often refer to my "forum." I am a little confused as I have two websites and one forum which is inactive. ( www.everlastingcovenant.com , www.144000.cc , www.gospelandcovenant.com - the forum)
As for scholars, they disagree more often than not, so some of them are wrong, and some are "possibly" right. I have tried to find what the Bible teaches and used that as the basis for what I write. I quote others not as primary evidence, but for wording and for interest, and more often than not as an expression of a view that I feel is wrong. I don't expect that we will ever agree, but it would help if you could present what you believe with the primary documentation that you have, and leave out the personal assumptions. And please, don't expect me to respond to third party writings as "your belief."
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Hubb, I have said this before but as a truth seeker, I can not judge whether individuals that I quote are truthful in all respects, but I can assume it is their belief and that they are enough of a scholar, which you and I are not, to be quoted first hand not with my bias or lingo to mix in with it. You have done a lot of that with your Introduction to your "Everlasting Gospel" website. If you expect individuals to follow you, sources are important as they are with me. Volker and Lehrer are two example. I can identify with the spiritual trip they have taken because one of them went to the PCA Seminary, which is a Reformed Theology (Covenant Theology) and their continued seeking for truth which brought them out of PCA. I attended a PCA church for several years when the SDA church in St. Louis had some basic error in dealing with church members. Their leaving PCA had to do with theological issues which is why I stopped attending. I would expect to see Reformed Theology to still be seen in their writings, and I would not quote as truth when I see it or use the error (my opinion) to have teaching moment for me and/or my audience.
All I ask you to do is to respond to the quote or material and give reasons for agreement or not. I will continue to quote scholars rather than make it appear it is my original thought. As I read at least your Introduction I see you put forth an opinion that has been gathered by reading other scholars. I tend to give credit where it is due. Some Adventist turn their nose up if it is not EGW or Adventist authors. This is a sort of "inbreeding" that does not progress toward truth but people "thinking for one self, and by oneself" as demonstrated from your closed forum, lack of participation. I will quote what I gave on another thread a caution to those studying the Covenants and Truth:
We do not believe that it is wise to refer to God’s plan to save a people in eternity past as a “covenant.” But we do believe that our one God who is three co-equal and co-eternal persons did make a perfect plan that He would save a people from their sins. But if this plan is not called a covenant by the authors of Scripture, we must think twice about describing it by that name ourselves. The reason we should only use the word “covenant” to describe events in Scripture that are actually called covenants is because of the importance of the word “covenant” in Scripture and the place of prominence the concept has in our theological systems. The danger of calling something a covenant that Scripture does not refer to as a covenant increases the likelihood of making something a cornerstone of our theology that in fact is not an emphasis in Scripture. This of course would lead to an unbalanced and unbiblical theological system.
You can assume that statement is my belief also which your website www.everlastingcovenant.com shows that you do not accept this position so it is difficult to talk about the Bible issues when this one concept can not be agreed on.
One last thought, you have given the impression that you understand why the lack of participants on this Forum. This forum, www.atomorrow.net has less participation, in my opinion due to the change after JR shut down his forum. There is no note on the front page of www.atomorrow.com to direct someone to this site. Also, the covenants is not of interest to most Adventists, and most would think it is a way around their beliefs since a child. Note that Paul ran into a similar problem:
1 Corinthians 3:2 I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready.
I hope we can continue dialogue, agreeing where we can and disagreeing without being disagreeable.
Last edited by bob_2 (07-19-11 1:00 pm)
Offline
Here is an example of your reasoning in your website that is not biblical:
A promise can be forgotten or changed almost at will. A modern contract includes much fine print, and becomes legal when properly signed and involves the integrity and financial backing of the individuals. A Covenant is even more. It is more than a promise!
http://www.everlastingcovenant.com/article.php?id=2
Note:
Galatians 3:18 For if the inheritance depends on the law[old Covenant], then it no longer depends on the promise[given to Abraham]; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
It appears that a Promise trumps a Covenant in this particular case.
Question, the Covenant of Gen 3:15, was it a covenant or a promise. If a covenant, was it something written given to Adam, yet the Bible does not say that, does it.
Last edited by bob_2 (07-19-11 1:20 pm)
Offline
Bob,
About the Everlasting Covenant:
● Jesus is the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8).
● An agreement was reached between Father and Son, the Father would “give” and the Son would “come” that all who believed would receive eternal life (John 3:16).
● In the Gospels, Jesus repeatedly emphasized that He came to do the will of the Father, and that He was doing the works of the Father. The “will of the Father” arose from an agreement within the Godhead made “before the foundation of the world.”
● A picture of this transaction is given in Revelation chapter five.
As to terms, this interaction within the Godhead can be called an agreement, the Plan of Salvation, or a covenant. To object to “covenant” is to hold to a very narrow view of the term. In the Bible there is a variety of “covenants.” Some ratified, some spoken, some confirmed by an oath, and some rather informal though generally a covenant is very formal.
I have read Volker and Lehrer and Zaspel. I think they are wrong, mainly because of their limited view of covenant – making it a “theology” rather than as a pattern for all the interactions of God with man, and for their bias regarding Israel and the law.
As for this discussion, your “bias and lingo” are exactly what I am interested in. I could go into detail the path that I have taken in this project, but that would arouse worthless dialog on non-issues.
Why are covenants not of interest to many people? Simply because it is a very technical study when one has to meet the twists and turns of error. However, there has been interest in my website with an average of 30 accessing the website, and 50 page hits per day. I put this in the hand of God. I try continually to improve my writing, as I think this is what will attract more people. You might note that I am #1 on Google for “everlasting covenant.”
Why isn’t atomorrow forum more active? I think that Facebook has taken away many people who would ordinarily write for forums. Also, I suspect that many don’t write because there is not much to write about. Most of the members tend to agree, so what is there to discuss?
Well, maybe ‘nuff sed.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Bob,
It appears that a Promise trumps a Covenant in this particular case.
I think you got that backwards. The covenant trumps all. Law is not "Old Covenant." The New Covenant is to write the LAW on the heart. Law can be "Old Covenant" only when it is kept by rote. I know, I know -- only the New Testament law, the law of love, is now in effect!! But HOW is love expressed? Love and freedom can exist only within the boundaries of law!
Read Genesis 3:15, and read it carefully, every phrase. It is a promise from God.. It was to extend to the history of the entire human race. Mankind would not be at the mercy of evil. Sin would be destroyed, but only through the suffering of the Redeemer.
Written? Who wrote anything at that time? that was a time when the Oral Tradition trumped anything written!
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
I previously to your comment above, googled Everlasting Covenant and because that is what they are searching for, not the way you mean it, but the way the Bible addresses it. To show you what I mean, were all the "everlasting covenant" that are bold and underlined all everlasting or some conditional that had an ending when broken. In fact the New Covenant that really is the only "everlasting covenant" does not give an individual salvation if they do not follow what the requirements for membership to the covenant are met.
Also notice the first verse Genesis 9:16 is the "everlasting covenant" relating to God promising never to use water to destroy the world again. Is that what your website is about? Do you see, sure you can have large numbers but how many conversed with you and agreed with your meaning of everlasting covenant. The below verse come from an online Bible search. Most refer to the Jewish covenant that ended at the cross, except for a remanent of the Jews that accepted the Messiah of the New Covenant.
1.Genesis 9:16
Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”
2.Genesis 17:7
I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you.
3.Genesis 17:13
Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant.
4.Genesis 17:19
Then God said, “Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.
5.Numbers 18:19
Whatever is set aside from the holy offerings the Israelites present to the LORD I give to you and your sons and daughters as your perpetual share. It is an everlasting covenant of salt before the LORD for both you and your offspring.”
6.2 Samuel 23:5
“If my house were not right with God, surely he would not have made with me an everlasting covenant, arranged and secured in every part; surely he would not bring to fruition my salvation and grant me my every desire.
7.1 Chronicles 16:17
He confirmed it to Jacob as a decree, to Israel as an everlasting covenant
8.Psalm 105:10
He confirmed it to Jacob as a decree, to Israel as an everlasting covenant
9.Isaiah 24:5
The earth is defiled by its people; they have disobeyed the laws, violated the statutes and broken the everlasting covenant.
10.Isaiah 55:3
Give ear and come to me; listen, that you may live. I will make an everlasting covenant with you, my faithful love promised to David.
11.Isaiah 61:8
“For I, the LORD, love justice; I hate robbery and wrongdoing. In my faithfulness I will reward my people and make an everlasting covenant with them.
12.Jeremiah 32:40
I will make an everlasting covenant with them: I will never stop doing good to them, and I will inspire them to fear me, so that they will never turn away from me.
13.Jeremiah 50:5
They will ask the way to Zion and turn their faces toward it. They will come and bind themselves to the LORD in an everlasting covenant that will not be forgotten.
14.Ezekiel 16:60
Yet I will remember the covenant I made with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you.
15.Ezekiel 37:26
I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant. I will establish them and increase their numbers, and I will put my sanctuary among them forever.
Last edited by bob_2 (07-19-11 5:20 pm)
Offline
If you read the text associated with the statement, you will see that in Gal 3:18, the Promise is more important than the law or 10 Commandments given 430 years later.
Galatians 3:18 For if the inheritance depends on the law[old Covenant], then it no longer depends on the promise[given to Abraham]; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a PROMISE.
It appears that a Promise trumps a Covenant in this particular case.
Without the PROMISE the New Covenant would not have a basis to welcome the Gentiles in to the BETTER PROMISES of the New Covenant.
Last edited by bob_2 (07-19-11 11:52 pm)
Offline
Hubb, there is plenty to talk about if one has the interest, like ONE"S OWN SALVATION!!!
Offline
Bob,
Part of your problem is your insistence on a rigid definition of “promise” and “covenant.” Generally, a human promise tends to be informal. The words “vow” and “covenant” are more formal. In a number instances in the Bible, God makes promises or even a covenant and does not use the specific terms. In a number of times “everlasting covenant” is used for a covenant where there is no record of a blood sacrifice. Which can only indicate a connection to “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”
There is no question in my mind but that there was an agreement made within the Godhead as to their response to sin. The issue in the Great Controversy is not just what happens on this earth, but the vindication of God, and the influence of events on the whole universe. God has repeatedly in the Bible spoken of “My Covenant” (52 times) yet this term is applied in a variety of situations. “Everlasting Covenant” is equated with “My Covenant” in Genesis 17.
There are some instances where “everlasting covenant” applies to covenants between God and man. Yet one must understand that in each of these instances, the Divine/human covenant has no meaning apart from the agreement/plan made before Creation. My last post points out the four features of the primordial covenant, concisely stated in Genesis 3:15.
About Galatians 3:18: It looks to me that the “inheritance” given to Abraham was the Abrahamic Covenant, which included a son, and the promise of land. There are other details, including the Messiah in his line of descendants (Galatians 3:16).
What is the “law” in verse 18? The SDA pioneers believed it to be the ceremonial law. E.J. Waggoner believed it to be the moral law. There are many now who believe it was both laws. I don’t think you and I are going to solve that problem! Verse 18 is just saying that the inheritance cannot be “earned” by law, but comes only by grace or “promise” (or covenant can be used here)
There is language in Galatians 3 that is not always easy to sort out. One has to understand the message of the Bible in other passages to put it together.
I read the list of verses with “Everlasting Covenant” and have no problem with any of them.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Galatians 3, written by Paul, painstakingly goes over the terms "PROMISE" and "LAW" that would only confuse someone that puts a bias to the interpretation. Notice at the beginning of his explanation to the Galatians that he is amazed that the don't understand what he taught them, "YOU FOOLISH GALATIANS":
Galatians 3 :1 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?[a] 4 Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? 5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? 6 So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”[c]
7 Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. 8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”[d] 9 So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”[e] 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.”[f] 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.”[g] 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.The Law and the Promise
15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22 But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
Children of God
23 Before the coming of this faith,[j] we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.
26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Last edited by bob_2 (07-20-11 6:32 pm)
Offline
Galatians 3 is so interesting, why didn't the start of the SDA Movement recognize what it is saying rather then allowing EGW's vision of the Law with a halo around the 4th Commandment, to send them in a direction different that the rest of Christendom. There is no mandate for Sundaykeeping but neither is there for Sabbathkeeping. We are commanded to not forsake the assemblying of ourselves, which leaves flexibility of when that would be or could be:
Heb 10:19 Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, THAT IS, HIS BODY, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, 25 not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.
Here, notice, Paul shows how Christ can fulfill the LAW IN HIS BODY, which I think we have talked about before.
"A new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is , his body."
This sheds light on Col 2: 16, 17 if anyone questions Jesus fulfilling the Law in His body/flesh.
Offline
Pages: 1