You are not logged in.
This thread will address the issue that the New Covenant made humanity righteous in God's sight and, with the exception of beast-worshipers who are still alive during the Second Coming of the Lord, their names were all written in the Book of Life.
In the Passover celebration of Christ with His disciples where the Lord’s Supper was instituted, He mentioned that the cup, which contains the emblem of His blood and from which all the disciples drank, is the New Covenant in His blood (Luke 22:20).
NAS Luke 22:20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.
Without the emblem of His blood in the cup, the cup would be empty; without the shedding of His blood, the New Covenant is worthless. His blood was shed and the prophecy relative to the New Covenant was fulfilled:
Jeremiah 31:33, 34 NIV
33 "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. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."Notice the lopsided terms of the new covenant (quoted in red above):
1. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts"
2. "I will be their God, and they will be my people"
3. "I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more"The terms of the New Covenant, whose mediator is Christ (Heb 12:24), stipulate what God will do for man, Jews and Gentiles alike (Eph 2:11-19). The New Covenant says nothing on what is required from man so that God will do His part. In the New Covenant, nothing is required of man in order for him to benefit from it. Under the terms of the New Covenant, God does everything, man reaps all the blessings.
Term #1. ”I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts" Whether we like it or not, God will put His law in our minds and write it on our hearts. Why? Is it to burden man with requirements? Consider the following:
KJV Psalm 119:142 Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth.
KJV Proverbs 6:23 For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life:
KJV Proverbs 13:14 The law of the wise is a fountain of life, to depart from the snares of death.List of requirements? Not quite. Instead, the Scriptures tell us God’s law is the beacon of truth that lights our path in our spiritual journey towards eternity. It spells the way of life we ought to take; it delineates what is best for us in living a righteous life. No wonder, God inspired the prophet to write these words:
KJV Isaiah 51:7 Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law…
King David asserted: KJV Psalm 37:30-31 30 The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment. 31 The law of his God is in his heart; none of his steps shall slide.
The apostle Paul remarked: KJV Romans 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
The Messiah Himself proclaimed: KJV Psalm 40:7-8 7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, 8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart. Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
But what is this law written in the heart and placed in the mind of man? Is this the Ten Commandments? Only or Partly? We’ll get back to this, promise. But I’d like you to share your inputs, first. Would you?
Term #2. "I will be their God, and they will be my people" Under the New Covenant, being God’s people, is God’s decision. . It is not for man to decide. It is God’s choice. He wants us to be His people. God required nothing from man for Him to make him His own. Paul, quoting from prophet Hosea, wrote:
KJV Romans 9:25, 26 25 …I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. 26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
By God’s grace through the death of Christ on the cross, we all, Jews and Gentiles, are the children of God, members of the family of God:
NIV Ephesians 2:11-13, 18,19
11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)--
12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.
13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ…
18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.
19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household,Praise God. By His grace, we all are God’s people, members of His own family. We did absolutely nothing to merit this benefit.
Term #3: "I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more" No IFs, no BUTs; in short, under the New Covenant, pardon for sins committed, past, present, future is not conditioned upon man’s act, but upon God’s decision. Immeasurable grace, boundless love of God for man. Sinful man became righteous in God’s sight because of Christ’s death on the cross. All our sins are no longer imputed upon us:
KJV 2 Corinthians 5:18-19 18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
KJV Ephesians 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Justice demands that the sinner must pay for his sin with his life. The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). But instead of us dying, Christ died for us. But how could this satisfy the demand of justice, when He who did not sin was the One who died for him who sinned? God solved this, by creating a new man, humanity the body and Christ the Head. God made men members of the body of Christ who is the Head. When the Head died, the body died. Paul expressed this, thus:
NIV Ephesians 2:14-16 14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.
KJV 2 Corinthians 5:14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:
KJV Romans 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
KJV 2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
Because of what God did through Christ, man is righteous in His sight. Man’s being written in the book of life since the foundation of the world found justification, all because of the New Covenant.
Allow me at this point to clarify that the past and present tenses of salvation found fulfillment in the New Covenant. Man’s having been saved and his being saved are all God’s work for man, zero contribution from man. Whether or not a man will be ultimately saved to inherit and enjoy eternal life, which is the future tense of salvation, will depend on whether that man’s name will be blotted out or not from the book of life.
Offline
Samie;
The terms of the New Covenant, whose mediator is Christ (Heb 12:24), stipulate what God will do for man, Jews and Gentiles alike (Eph 2:11-19). The New Covenant says nothing on what is required from man so that God will do His part. In the New Covenant, nothing is required of man in order for him to benefit from it. Under the terms of the New Covenant, God does everything, man reaps all the blessings.
Under the New Covenant, being God’s people, is God’s decision. . It is not for man to decide. It is God’s choice. He wants us to be His people. God required nothing from man for Him to make him His own.
"I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more" No IFs, no BUTs; in short, under the New Covenant, pardon for sins committed, past, present, future is not conditioned upon man’s act, but upon God’s decision. Immeasurable grace, boundless love of God for man. Sinful man became righteous in God’s sight because of Christ’s death on the cross. All our sins are no longer imputed upon us:
You have made a thoughtful post. From reading the statements quoted above, I suspect that you believe in universal salvation. If this is not the case, what does a man have to do to get lost? It seems that men are saved without having to do anything at all, from your statements.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
"What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God."
A simple rendition of the Golden Rule will also suffice.
It's easy to be saved; hard to be lost.
Offline
Elaine, I should point out that no amount of good works, love, or kindness is sufficient to obtain Eternal Life.
The Golden Rule, which actually comes from the Law and the Prophets, is not sufficient for salvation, nor is it the definition of the Gospel.
Moreover, the NT teaches that is is very easy to be lost, and difficult to be saved.
Matt. 7:12 “In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
Matt. 7:13 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.
Matt. 7:14 “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
There are far too many myths and false views floating around about the Gospel and the teachings of Christ. There is no excuse for so much confused Gospel error. At what point will the fundamentals of the Gospel become understood by this community? When will they be able to understand the difference between truth and error; fact and fiction?
Last edited by tom_norris (09-08-10 8:44 pm)
Offline
If God wants everyone to be saved, what does it take to be lost?
Offline
Elaine, many folks will want to give the impression that God isn't especially eager for everyone to be saved.
God wants everyone to be saved, but He won't force it on anyone. One can prevent God from doing the writing, if one chooses. (But then, both Paul and Jesus talk about those who don't actually accept Christ and yet will be saved).
Furthermore, proof texts won't suffice. The answer to the question "what must I do to be saved?" varies greatly, depending on the listener. Sell all you have and give to the poor. Be baptized. Believe on the name of Jesus. (or, perhaps, the name of Jesus isn't all powerful, as many who say Lord, Lord will be lost)
As to whether the original post actually proves universal salvation, it would be useful to figure out who is meant by "Israel" in the prophecy.
It seems clear that rejecting God is the way to be lost. But what does this actually mean? Can one reject God and not know it, or must it be done explicilty and willingly? The gnostics among us would have us believe that there are arcane understandings of particular texts and this is what is needed for salvation. This simply locates the mechanism of works in our intellects rather than our hands. Does disobeying God count as rejecting Him? This would also suggest works.
Face it, Grace is a mystery. If we sincerely seek God, and love Him, we will allow Him to fill us. we know it when it happens.
As for me and my questions, well, I only know the answers that don't satisfy me. I will do my best to hear God and obey, and to continue to accept Christ. As for salvation, my prayer is Zwingli's: "Do as You will: I am your vessel, to be restored or destroyed"
Offline
Yitzak,
I believe that many more people will be saved than anyone dreams. How can the know when they haven't heard? If people live by the Golden Rule and love justice and mercy, that has to be the only criteria. Fewer people know of Jesus than recognize a Supreme Being. If their lives reflect their inner beliefs, they will be happy in heaven, and we all will be glad they are there. '
What we should fear is that those who are so certain than only the 144,000 who are obedient SDAs will be in heaven are so exclusive that they will disparage anyone else there who has not their same experience: being able to decipher D&R.
Offline
elaine, one IS reminded of the description of the pharisees, who stand at the gates of heaven, denying entry to others and themselves staying without.
I have lived too long to have a great deal of certainty about salvation, other than a general belief that there will be many surprises in heaven, and a general hope that God sees fit to have me there to be surprised.
The righteousness olympics I see in many churches (not only adventist, by the way, and certainly many adventists I know do not participate) sadden me. As well, I know friends who were wrong about this or that theological point, whose absence from heaven I cannot reconcile with a just or loving God- by their fruits I knew them, and I saw God's influence in their lives, even if they themselves could not (including atheist and agnostic friends- more the poor witness I for failing to influence them more, and indeed, for learning more of the godly virtues from them than I could teach).
Offline
We often hear much more from Adventists about the Fundamental Beliefs and little about Micah's saying that to live justly and do mercy and walk humbly with God; plus the separation of the sheep and goats will have nothing about doctrinal belief but only about our treatment of others. When do we hear that argued? Or is it because there is nothing in them to be argued about?
Offline
It's easy to be saved; hard to be lost.
I have attended a number of meetings of the 1888 Message Study Committee, and am very familiar with that statement. Only problem is that it does not fit with life as we live it.
What is it that is hard? The Bible says that the way of the transgressor is hard. And that is so. Anyone who has worked in an Emergency Department of a hospital will have dozens of examples of this truth, almost every day.
EGW speaks of the "hard stern battles with self." This is what is hard. It is having to deny self, having to submit to the will of God. A person would much rather do penance, pay money, flagellate his back, etc leaving him free to do as he pleases. The carnal man does not want to give up his sins (lifestyle). However, if he sees the Cross of Christ, yields to Him, consents to the work of grace -- he is richly rewarded with a new hope, a faith relationship with Jesus Himself, and an enduring love. Peace and joy take the place of anxiety and depression.
To be lost? This is the lot of the person who does nothing, who resists the attraction of the Cross of Christ. His is the life of a sometimes well disguised transgression and eventual loss. The Holy Spirit works with such people urging them to decide for Christ.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
The Bible has much to say about an “Everlasting Covenant.” We also know that Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. When Jesus came to earth, he repeatedly stated that he did the will of the Father. This is said with the implication that the “will of the Father” was previously known and agreed upon. John 3:16 supports this.
An “everlasting covenant” is consistent with a covenant made by God, within council of the Godhead – the Father gave, the Son came, and the Holy Spirit empowered grace in the lives of people. The Bible repeatedly speaks of “my covenant” as being the specific covenant of God. This covenant was given or “announced” to Adam and Eve. We do not have a record that they responded at that time.
The word “covenant” is not used to describe the agreement between Father and Son. In the interactions between God and men, the terminology is not the focus, rather it is the actions of God and the responses of men that define the covenant.
With Genesis 3:15, the actions of God are described, consistent with covenant. Adam and Eve, fresh from the perfection of Eden, had shown unbelief and distrust of God in their sin, but they did not show corruption or rebellion. In a sense, their attitudes and responses were a “given.”
As time went on, human responses became more and more important, coming to a head at Sinai. But this is another story.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
This is in reply to an email message I received yesterday. It is a change in direction from what I posted yesterday, but is still regarding an important aspect of the Covenant.
First, Old, Faulty, About to Pass Away.
The “old covenant” is considered to be an Old Testament institution, yet it is NOT discussed in the Old Testament. Instead the specific discussion of the old covenant is in Hebrews – in the New Testament. It is important to note that Hebrews was probably written between a.d. 45 and a.d. 70. If it were written after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, the writing would have been much different.
Hebrews chapters 7 - 10 present the core arguments, presenting in some detail the heavenly priestly ministration of Christ. This is compared with a continued belief on the part of Jewish Christians who could not let go of the ceremonial law with its sacrifices.
Just how bad was the “old covenant?” The following is a list of annotated references. The sheer number of such references adds up to a clear picture:
Hebrews 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things
vs 8:6 A more excellent ministry; a better covenant; upon better promises
vs 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should not place have been sought for the second.
vs 8:8 for finding fault with them he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
vs 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
vs 8:10 this is the covenant ... I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts
vs 8:13 In that he saith, A New covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away
Hebrews 9:1 The first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary (The ark of the covenant containing the tables of the covenant)
vs 9:8,9 the way into the holiest was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing
Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect ....
vs 9:15 He is the mediator of the new testament, ... for ... the transgressions that were under the first testament ...
vs 9:18 the first testament was dedicated with blood
vs 9:23 necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified
Hebrews 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of those things ...
vs 10:9 Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the 2nd
vs 10:16,17 the New Covenant repeated.
Comment:
The “old covenant” that is described here is the Jewish Christian desire to hold onto the ceremonial law. In doing so, they were denying the efficacy of Jesus’ death on the cross. It will take a longer discussion to put in place all the details brought out in these passages.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
First Hubb, you are wrong about the Old Covenant not being discussed in the OT. Note:
Ex 34:27 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” 28 Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.
In fact in light of Heb 8:13 this passage is extremely helpful, I think. It shows more than ceremonial or civic regulations could be separated out. The Jews saw and see the Torah as a whole not as the compartmentalization that you would wish.
Offline
Then go right away to:
2 Corinthians 3
1 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, like some people, letters of recommendation to you or from you? 2 You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everyone. 3 You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
4 Such confidence we have through Christ before God. 5 Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. 6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
The Greater Glory of the New Covenant
7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9 If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11 And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts! 12 Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. 13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate[a] the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.
Last edited by bob_2 (06-14-11 11:00 pm)
Offline
After reading 2 Cor 3 go to 1 Jn 3;21 Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God 22 and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. 23 And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. 24 The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.
These commands are quite different from the commands given in the 10. The 10 say nothing about love, they are all about duty. The Israelites under the old covenant found out about love in Deuteronomy and Leviticus.
The new covenant does not require old covenant rituals like observing new moon Sabbaths, festival Sabbaths and weekly Sabbaths. That is why Paul could write Col 2. Those became d shadowy laws at Calvary, Jesus is reality. Praise our Savior Jesus. That is why Paul could write 2 Cor 3. The 10 were glorious and now they have faded. Our guide given to all mankind, if they will accept Him, at Pentecost leads us in righteousness.
Offline
Bob,
You are welcome to your beliefs and interpretation of the Bible, and I won't say that you are wrong. As I study the Bible, I get a certain picture from which other passages need to fit. Thus with the model we each develop, it is difficult, is sometimes impossible to accept a difference in one small part. Your statement:
Ex 34:27 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” 28 Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.
In fact in light of Heb 8:13 this passage is extremely helpful, I think. It shows more than ceremonial or civic regulations could be separated out. The Jews saw and see the Torah as a whole not as the compartmentalization that you would wish.
My understanding is that the covenant given to Abraham was to extend to all his descendants to the close of time, which would include the Christian Church, "for if ye be Christ's, ye be Abraham's seed" There is an historical old covenant described in Exodus 19:8; 23:20-33l 24L3-11. This covenant was broken by the rebellious, heathen festival at the base of Sinai within 46 days of its ratification. There is controversy over which covenant Israel lived for the rest of the Old Testament. I believe that it was the Abrahamic covenant renewed (Exodus 34:9-11). There was also the experiential old covenant, or "old covenant mindset" which developed and increased in strength up to the time of Christ. This ran in parallel with the Abrahamic Covenant.
Why Hebrews 9 (which describes the historical old covenant (Hebrews 9::19-21)) should attach the sanctuary and its services to this covenant is a problem.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
About 2 Corinthians 3, I believe that the ministry of death was the same old covenant described in Hebrews 9. Paul made a major effort to teach the people to have faith in Jesus Christ, His effectual sacrifice on Calvary, and His resurrection. All the sacrifices and ceremonies were done away and ineffectual from the cross of Christ.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Bob, this quote from you:
After reading 2 Cor 3 go to 1 Jn 3;21 Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God 22 and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. 23 And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. 24 The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.
These commands are quite different from the commands given in the 10. The 10 say nothing about love, they are all about duty. The Israelites under the old covenant found out about love in Deuteronomy and Leviticus.
The new covenant does not require old covenant rituals like observing new moon Sabbaths, festival Sabbaths and weekly Sabbaths. That is why Paul could write Col 2. Those became d shadowy laws at Calvary, Jesus is reality. Praise our Savior Jesus. That is why Paul could write 2 Cor 3. The 10 were glorious and now they have faded. Our guide given to all mankind, if they will accept Him, at Pentecost leads us in righteousness.
See these verses also in 1 John:
vs 2:2 "that ye sin not"
vs 2:6 "walk, even as he walked"
vs 2:29 "every one that doeth righteousness is born of him"
vs 3:4 "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law"
vs 3:6 "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not"
vs 3:7 "he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous."
vs 3:9 "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; ... he cannot sin,"
There are other verses, but you get the picture. It also speaks of the "new commandment" which is love. This was new because the Jews kept the ten commandments without love. But Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount supported the ten commandments, but insisted that unless this came from the heart (with love) their "keeping" was not righteousness nor was it pleasing to God. But can the Ten Commandments be kept with love? If a person keeps the ten commandments, is he then "not loving?" I think the answers are clear -- the Ten Commandments describe love in specific detail. You cannot break any of the Ten without turning away from love to God or love to fellow men.
You cannot separate love from duty. Just ask your wife!
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Hubb, you have to remember there is a Bob_2, me, and a Bob who I am not. Thanks for jumping in Bob before Hubb's last response, I agree with what you posted. Just clarifying for Hubb who he iis talking to and see there is more than one person on this forum that agrees with the NewCovenant Theology. If I have assumed too much Bob, please clarify.
Hubb, one glaring weird position of yours, is that the Old Covenant was the one Moses broke when he came down the mountain and found them worshipping the "golden calf". Please give references for that "truth" that you assume.
I will just remind you of this text about the longevity of the Decalogue:
Gal 3:18 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.
Note this "parable" of Paul:
Gal 4:21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.
24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written:“Be glad, barren woman,
you who never bore a child;
shout for joy and cry aloud,
you who were never in labor;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband.”[e]28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30 But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.” 31 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.
There are other verses that refer to Abraham's Promise that is not based on the law that was given over 400 years after the Promise which is what allows us to be Adopted by Christ. The Promise survives the Old Covenant. It was the basis of the Old and New Covenants, but when Christ died the Old Covenant passed away and the New Covenant, still based on the Promise and "better promises"
Hebrews 8:6
6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.
Last edited by bob_2 (06-15-11 12:32 pm)
Offline
Bob and Bob_2,
Please clarify -- is "Bob" related to "Bob_2?" If not, who is "Bob_2?" I need to know something about him. Do you regularly communicate with "Bob" and believe the same things? I checked the profiles on this forum, but I guess for privacy reasons, there is almost nothing there to really identify a person. All this leaves me at a loss to know who I am really talking to.
I also find it difficult to dialog with persons who hold basic premises that are so different from mine.
Do you believe that the Bible in its full context is inerrant for doctrine and for instruction in the Gospel message?
(by "full context" I refer to the message supported by both the Old and the New Testaments, with harmonizing of all the parts.)
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
During my time I went to church at a PCA church, whether the Bible was inerrant or not, was a big deal. I don't remember any SDA ever asking that question. I have no problem with calling the Bible the inerrant Word of God. A PCA minister that I respect, always made an addition that it is inerrant in the original documents. I don't read Hebrew or Greek, but by faith I believe it is God's inspired Word.
Hubb said:
I also find it difficult to dialog with persons who hold basic premises that are so different from mine.
Do you believe that the Bible in its full context is inerrant for doctrine and for instruction in the Gospel message?
(by "full context" I refer to the message supported by both the Old and the New Testaments, with harmonizing of all the parts.)
Hubb, you have hit the nail on the head. If you believe the Bible is not inerrant, that leaves you and I to surmise the meaning of any part of the Bible, we may indeed have problems communicating, example:
Hubb, you apparently believe the First/Old Covenant was the time between Moses breaking the original copy of the Commandments and the "next " printing of or carving of the stone tablets. I am asking a second time, give some references.
Even with anonymous posters on other sites, what is important is to tell the truth no matter who you are talking to, right?
Last edited by bob_2 (06-15-11 6:23 pm)
Offline
Hubb, you should know better!!! Look at all the Bob_2 comments. Bob_2 is Bob Sands moniker, and I knew Bob's last name at one time, and I apologize to him that I have forgotten his last name. I don't think he would mind telling you his name here publically or in offline email. To your question, is Bob related to Bob_2? No, although I wouldn't mind being related when you see what he has said consistently.
Offline
Bob_2
I guess I should know what PCA refers to, but I can't bring it up now.
Thanks for the clarification about "Bob." I noticed that his "email" was different and wondered why "you changed your email!"
I definitely believe that the Bible is inerrant for doctrine, and you can add "in its original autographs" if needed. To be technical, I would limit this to the canonical writings, and leave out the apocrypha. The first/historical old covenant was made at Sinai. Immediately afterward Moses and Joshua went into the mount, waited till the seventh day, when Moses was invited into the thick cloud and was given the ten commandments written on stone. After 40 days and nights without food or water, God told him that the people had corrupted themselves. Moses and Joshua went down the mountain and came upon the scene of debauchery that is so well known. He threw down the brand new tables of the law and smashed them on the rocks. It was just 46 days!
I think I have made it plain that I post on forums just for the fun of it. Part of that "fun" is knowing who I are talking to. Like talking to a post if I know nothing about who it is I am talking to.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Bob_2
In line with what I said above, I have been thinking some of the direction of this forum. Actually it was a direction that began about ten years ago. When I first joined the www.atomorrow.com forum, it was a forum of friends that enjoyed banter, humor, friendly jabs to each other, but nothing serious.
As time went on the constituency of the forum gradually changed. Several people who had something worthwhile to say lost interest. There was less banter, some of the jabs became more pointed, and people began to take their posting seriously -- expecting that others would be "converted" by their efforts. Along with this, the social programs exploded onto the scene -- Twitter and Facebook, etc. I suspect that many "forum people" have moved to those other activities. It is more fun (?)
I don't know why I write this. I hope that I am not trying to "convert" anyone. Maybe just one small comment -- that is the reason that I like to know something personal about the persons I dialog with. I am looking for friends, not (perish the thought) "converts."
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
I wanted to pass on something I heard from one of the Spectrum guys, I won't tell you which one, just that we don't agree on some of his positions. His advice would keep us all out a lot of trouble:
"Always think for yourself; never think by yourself."
Now, tell me who else believes that the Old Covenant is the 45 days from the broken tablets on Sinai to the second set of commandments, I don't even think EGW goes there, does she?
Hubb, Bob_2 is Bob Sands, Bob is another Bob, and sorry Bob I forgot your last name, but I do agree with your position last posted. No relation are we Bob but brothers in Christ.
(I'll answer more of what you said above, but it's late. Talk to you tomorrow. )
Last edited by bob_2 (06-16-11 1:11 am)
Offline