Strange and Unheard of Supposed Comments By Seventh-day Adventists

Strange and Unheard of Supposed Comments By Seventh-day Adventists

In the May/June edition of Proclamation! Magazine (2009) Mr. Ratzlaff just confirms the unethical feature of his methodology as he once again proposes to assesses Seventh-day Adventism. He begins an article he wrote (“Does Paul Conflict With Jesus?”, p. 14) alleging that he was “sitting in an audience where I heard an Adventist pastor say something to the effect that Paul had his disagreements with Jesus”. Then he proceeds to say that he was “deeply disturbed” with such opinion, going on in his misrepresentation of what SDA’s teach adding his opinion that this wouldn’t be an “isolated opinion” and that “many Adventists say that Paul misunderstood Jesus”. Worse, he declares in a nonchalant way that “Some Adventists indicate that one cannot trust what Paul wrote because he disagrees with Jesus and undermines the law”. Some who? How many? What is the proportion of these? Where do they live and teach these strange and unheard of things? By the way, the Apostle Paul is my favorite Bible author, and to many SDA’s too.

Now I would urge Mr. Ratzlaff to tell clearly WHO this pastor mentioned by him was that we can check with him what he really meant, for I never, in over 40 years of being a Seventh-day Adventist, heard any pastor, or even lay person, saying anything similar to that. There are two possibilities: a) he misunderstood what this pastor said; b) he distorts dishonestly something that this pastor said.

This dishonesty is confirmed later on in his innuendos that we think that salvation is by keeping the commandments (at least in part), which is not true, absolutely. Referring to the episode of the rich young man (Matt. 19:17ff), he says: “Here we see that keeping the commandments does not bring true assurance and peace with God. He, the obedient commandment keeper, recognize his continuing lack. One never knows if this law keeping is 'good enough’”. That is the kind of discourse that we can do without. It doesn’t affect us at all, as anyone can see just checking the 28 topics of our confessional document.

Besides, as I said, in over 40 years of reading so many pieces of SDA literature, listening to lectures, sermons, Sabbath School lessons expositions, Bible studies by both pastors and lay people, NEVER EVER I heard such a statement. So, I am inclined to think that what happened is letter b), since Mr. Ratzlaff has already revealed that he is not trustworthy in so many of his comments on our teachings and sentiments.

Further down, he continues: “Jesus’ telling him to keep the commandments was not giving him a method for getting to heaven; rather, the commandment were given to point out sin”. And: “. . . keeping the moral commandments of the law is good but not sufficient to save, and that the commandments are designed to cause us to realize that we still lack the goodness for eternal life. To be saved, one must trust Christ alone for salvation”.

Now, that, in a way, is surprising for he finally recognizes that the commandments “were given to point out sin”. That is correct and according to Rom. 3:20, where Paul confirms that the role of the law IS (using the present tense) to reveal sin, which he confirms in Rom. 7:7, 8. So, aren’t we still sinners? Don’t we need the law to show us were we fail, so that we resort to the solution--Christ’s shed blood and forgiveness? So, the law works as a mirror that points us our sins, and we resolve that, not breaking the mirror (as those who teach the abolition of the law theory), but looking for the forgiveness promised to those who look for the assistance of the Advocate (1 John 2:1).

Who came up with this law/mirror illustration? John Calvin did, in his Institutes. Other Christian authors say the same thing.

By the way, I have been stressing how Evangelical/Protestant Churches historically teach that the 10 Commandments represent God’s Moral law, in contrast to the Ceremonial and Civil laws, these last ones not applicable to the Church. Now, I have researched some more and came to a very “surprising” conclusion: ALL OF THE MOTHER-CHURCHES OF PROTESTANT CHRISTENDOM TEACH THAT! Yes, that is true--Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Congregational, Anglicans consensually teach that the 10 Commandments law continues being the rule of life for Christians in ALL their precepts. These are those churches from which all the other derived, including offshoots like this New Alliance movement of Ratzlaff.

Speaking of New Alliance, it would be good to remember the question we submitted to both him and his editor, which puts things in due perspective regarding this theme of the transfer from Old to New Alliance. They NEVER EVER gave us any answer. It seems impossible to these “New Alliancers” to give any response to this question. It paralyzes them totally and shows the error of their interpretation. I applied a slight change to the “famous” question. Let’s see it again:

Where is it written that in the change from the Old to the New Covenant, when God writes what is called “My laws” in the hearts and minds of those who accept the terms of the New Covenant [New Testament] (Heb. 8:6-10), transferring the contents of the cold tables of stone to the hearts warmed by the divine grace (2 Cor. 3:2-7), God in the process,

a) leaves out the 4th commandment of the moral law;

b) includes the 4th commandment, but changing the sanctity of the 7th to the 1st day of the week?

OR

c) leaves the question of the day of rest as a vague, voluntary and variable practice that can be reinterpreted as any day which is most convenient to the believer (or his employer)?

ALSO:

d) leaves out the dietary rules regarding unclean/clean meats?

Basic texts: Hebrews 8:6-10; Jeremiah 31:31-33; Ezekiel 11:19, 20 and 36:26, 27; Isaiah 66:15-18.

As to the HARMONY between Law and Grace, Faith and Works, Justification and Sanctification, the study that is found in another topic, which could be accessed through the link below suffices to resolve this supposed conflict that Ratzlaff tries to convince his readers that occurs in 7th-day Adventism, to the point of “many” believing that Paul was is disagreement with Jesus in our midst, which is totally untrue.

See below the study “10 Topics to Better Understand the Question of Law and Grace” -- UNDERSTANDING THE CONFLICTING STATEMENTS OF PAUL AND JAMES ON LAW & GRACE, FAITH & WORKS, JUSTIFICATION & SANCTIFICATION

For following the these discussions from the beginning see the initial article of the series “Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith” through this link:

http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=92549&page=1

10 Topics to Better Understand the Question of Law and Grace

UNDERSTANDING THE CONFLICTING STATEMENTS OF PAUL AND JAMES ON LAW & GRACE, FAITH & WORKS, JUSTIFICATION & SANCTIFICATION

In this sequence of 10 items the proposal is to promote a rational and objective study of the divine law question in the face of the message of salvation by grace, a theme that is often misunderstood by Christians in general.

The apostle Paul clearly says that salvation is only through faith, without any human merit (Eph. 2: 8 e 9). The prophet Isaiah had said that our works of justice are mere “filthy rags” (Isa. 64:6). No work performed by man is acceptable to God—Whose law is “perfect” (Psa. 19:7)—in terms of obtaining merits for salvation. Even our prayers, such a pious act of religious fervor, can only be heard through the intercession of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:26).

But after speaking of salvation not due to works in Ephesians 2:8 and 9, Paul adds in vs. 10: “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them”. James reiterates that “faith, if it hath not works, is dead” (2:17) and Jesus also said: “If ye love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15).

Thus, we have a clear tension between being saved by faith, independently of the works of the law, but the necessity to demonstrate that faith by faithful obedience to the law. How to understand that?

Introduction

The theme of God’s law in contrast with that of grace could not be absent from theological materials, homepages of “Christian apologetics” ministries and in the confrontation of ideas in Evangelical forums in the Internet. However, since we promised to deal with the subject, let’s first raise a pertinent and encompassing question of what will be dealt with in this study:

* Are the Old Testament laws indeed valueless, no more applicable to the Christian community under the new covenant?

1) The answer is—yes and no. There are laws that were invalidated for fulfilling their prefigurative function, such as the rules on offering of lambs and foods, the sacrifices and several norms for priests and people. When John the Baptist pointed to Christ as “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29) he reminded his hearers the meaning of the many lambs sacrificed by the Israelites as atonement for their sins. They were the antitype of the Great Type, Jesus Christ.

Nevertheless, if there are laws of temporary character, there are also those of a perennial character that could not be removed lest it opened the door for total chaos at public and private levels: “Honor thy father and thy mother”, “ye shall not kill”, “ye shall not steal”, “ye shall not commit adultery”. . . These precepts are reminded by the several New Testament authors as normative to Christians (see Eph. 6:1 e 2; Jas. 2:8-10). Paul makes that clear as he shows the validity of some rules and the nullity of others to the Christian community, as we will see briefly.

The Bible laws are divided into clear categories regarding their objectives and value. Along the centuries, Christian documents and authors have defined these laws as being moral (expressed in the Ten Commandments), ceremonial, civil, hygienic, etc. The most representative Confessions of Faith of Christendom, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, always taught this “distinction” of the laws, as is clearly presented in the Westminster Confession of Faith and in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of the Church of England.

There are those who allege that the Bible deals on “law” indicating only one indivisible “package”, but the “division” of the laws is obvious by the simple fact that on Sinai God proclaimed with His own voice, audibly, before the gathered people, only the Ten Commandments, later transcribing them on the tables of stone, “and He added no more” (Deu. 5:22). All the laws that were ceremonial, civil, hygienic, etc., were dictated to Moses in another occasion, so that he transcribed them on the scrolls of the law.

Conclusion: There are commandments which are important, but should not be fulfilled any more, and commandments that should be obeyed, as the apostle Paul engages himself in a clear “division” of Bible laws when he says in 1 Cor. 7:19: “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God”.

2) Both modern and ancient scholars, as well as historical faith confessions (including some among the main Reformers) have the Decalogue as the valid Christian conduct norm. In their confessions of faith they never allege that the divine law was abolished, replaced by some “law of Christ” (supposedly less rigorous) neither promoted the thesis that observing these commandments would be attach oneself to the “letter of the law” in place of being inspired by “Spirit”. They rather define the divine laws as having ceremonial, civil and moral precepts, the latter synthesized in the Ten Commandments.

Among the scholarly statements and creeds of the Christendom with these clear positions we could mention The Second Helvetic Confession (1566), the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of the Church of England (of 1571) in its Article VII; The Irish Articles of Religion (1615); The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647); The Savoy Declaration of the Congregational Churches (1658); the Baptist Confession of Faith of 1688 (Philadelphia) based on the London Confession of 1677; the Methodist Articles of Religion (1784); The Presbyterian Small Catechism and such authors as Wesley, Moody, Spurgeon, and more recently Billy Graham, James Kennedy, etc.

In hymn books of Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Methodists, etc., one can find hymns of praise to God, speaking of God’s law as ruling the Christian’s conduct.

Conclusion: Great Christian scholars and creeds of Christendom always recognized the different types and objectives of the divine laws according to their civil, ceremonial, hygienic, penal aspects. These are divers codes ruled by the basic moral law, such as the Constitution is the foundational law of a democratic country, on which is based all civil legislation through its many codes (commercial, criminal, labor laws). These laws could be abolished or changed that they won’t interfere with the Constitution, but if the latter is changed, it will affect all the other laws.

3) It is necessary that Christians understand better the concepts of justification and sanctification. Justification is entirely by faith, and through it “peace with God” is established (Rom. 5:1). It means God’s work for us for salvation, centered on the cross of Christ. As a consequence, there is regeneration, or new birth, thus beginning the process of sanctification, which represents God’s work in us for granting us His Spirit and shedding His love in our hearts (Rom. 5:5). It’s a lifetime work of gradual and continuous growth in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ (2a. Pet. 3:18)—consequence, not basis, of the experience of salvation.

Conclusion: Obeying the commandments of God’s law occurs in the field of sanctification, not of justification. It means to accept Christ as Lord after having received Him as Savior.

4) The principle of genuine obedience, which synthesizes the tenor of all divine commandments, is love. Thus Jesus summarized (not substituted) the commands into a) love God above all things and b) love the neighbor as oneself. He is just quoting Old Testament statements (Mat. 22: 34-36, cf. Deu. 6:5; Lev. 19:18). The same basic principle of love is also His “new” commandment: John 13:24.

Conclusion: The covenants are built upon the moral principle of love—both the new and the [/b]old[/b] (see also Rom. 13:8-10). The divine laws were always, in all times, based on love.

5) Certain Bible expositors make a lot of confusion in pulpits, presses and text processors regarding the theme of the law in the Pauline epistles. This misunderstanding is dangerous on the light of 2 Pet. 3: 15 e 16, for those who act like that are called “unlearned” and “unstable”. They don’t realize the meaning of the apostle Paul’s words when he speaks negatively on the law in some texts, dealing, however, with it in other places in positive terms and quoting its commandments as valid. This should be understood on the light of the concepts of justification by faith and sanctification. Let’s see these Bible paradoxes:

a) Texts in which Paul deals with the law “negatively”: Rom. 3: 20-24; 5:20; 6:14, 15; 7:6; 8:3; Gal. 2:16-19; 3:10-13; 5:4; Eph. 2:7, 8; 15.

b) Texts in which Paul confirms the validity of the law as normative to Christians and exalts it saying that it pleases him: Rom. 3:31; 7: 7, 14, 22; 8: 4; 13:9-10; 7:19; Gal. 5:14; Eph. 6:1, 2.

How to understand this? The explanation is simple: those who try to have the law as a source or means of salvation, placing his obedience in the area of justification, can only put themselves under its malediction, for “by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20 and 7:7). These ones could even come to the point of losing salvation if they were grounded in grace before: “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4). Failing to trust in the merits of Christ by including their works as means of salvation, they deny their experience of genuine faith in the complete, perfect and meritorious work of Christ for the salvation of all those who believe.

6) Two episodes illustrate the harmony between law and grace in both the Old and the New Testament:

a) In the Old Testament: At the solemn proclamation of the Ten Commandments at Sinai, God declared, even before pronouncing the first commandment: “I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Exo. 20:2). This is a revelation of His grace. It follows the enunciation of the law in vs. 3 to 17.

b) In the New Testament: Before the woman caught in adultery Christ first presented her His forgiving grace —“Neither do I condemn thee”. After that He presented her His law: “Go and sin no more” (John 8:10, 11).

Thus, the obedience to God’s commandments (works) not only doesn’t go against the principle of justification by faith alone, but is, rather, its consequence, placing itself in the field of sanctification. Thence the statement by the apostle James: “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone” (Jas. 2:17, cf. Eph. 2:10).

Conclusion: As two tracks of a railway run side by side and give the necessary balance that the train speeds ahead safely, thus it is with grace and law, faith and works, God’s action and man’s response in the process of justification, sanctification until the final glorification.

7) A factor for misunderstanding the theme of the Bible laws is what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 3 regarding the “ministration of death, written and engraven in stones” in contrast with the “ministration of the Spirit”, by which the Christians present themselves as recommendation letters written “not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart” (vs. 8 e 3).

Paul contrasts those who live under a regimen of “condemnation” for not having experienced salvation in Christ, with those who accepted the terms of the new covenant, thus having the divine law, not merely in the form of letters etched on stones, but written on their hearts and minds by God’s Spirit, according to the promise of this new covenant (Heb. 8:6-10). The psalmist speaks of that experience in Psalm 40:8.

Those who still lived under the “old covenant” were the same who Christ reprimanded for being more concerned about the letter “which kills” than with the spirit of the law. That was the case of His criticism to their practice of tithing (Mat. 23:23). Christ didn’t condemn them for tithing, but for being so much concerned with the technicalities of dividing the “mint and anise and cummin”, to the point of losing sight of the spiritual aspects of the ordinance.

Paul didn’t live in times so far removed from that of Christ, and he himself had been a Pharisee, thus he knew the mindset of his previous fellows in the religion field. To mistake the law, that he considered “holy”, “just”, “good”, “pleasurable” and that he had served with his mind (Rom. 7:12, 14, 22, 25), with a “ministration of condemnation” makes no sense, inasmuch as he confirms that “the law is good, if a man use it lawfully” (1 Tim. 1:8). Would God summon His people for the solemn event of the delivery of the law, to offer them a law of death?! Moreover, the problem of this “ministration of death” was not with the law, which is perfect (Psa. 19:7), but with the people, who didn’t realize its more profound and spiritual character.

Conclusion: For not understanding the difference between “law”, “covenant” and “ministration of the Spirit” and “ministration of condemnation” many fail to perceive that Paul is not diminishing the importance of the moral law as normative to the Christian in 2 Corinthians 3, rather he is contrasting attitudes vis-à-vis the law. He compares what it means to live under the regimen of the old covenant, more preoccupied with the letter, with the life of Christians he compares with letters written with the divine Spirit, having the law, not in letter on the cold stone tables, but recorded in their hearts, warmed by the divine grace (see Rom. 8:3 e 4 and Psa. 40:8).

8) Far from teaching that the New Testament represents a new covenant without the basic moral law expressed in the Ten Commandments, the author of Hebrews shows that to those who accept the terms of the New Covenant (or New Testament) God Himself would write His law in their hearts and print it in their minds (Heb. 8:6-10; 10:16). We’ve seen as Paul compares the Christian under the new covenant with “epistles written in our hearts, known and read of all men . . . not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart” (2 Cor. 3:1-11).

Under the new covenant, established upon “better promises”, God writes His law in the hearts of those who accept its terms, taking them from the cold stone tables to record it in their hearts warmed by the divine grace (ver Heb. 8:6). Notice that this “law of God” is the same that was contained in the original promise directed to the children of Israel in Jeremiah 31:31-33, not any other. The burden of proof rests with those who deny this fact, clearly set in these texts. Heb. 10:16 confirms: God writes His law in the hearts of His children under the new covenant. The Hebrew-Christian readers of the epistle would understand that perfectly. And the promise of divine assistance for obedience to this law is found also in Eze. 36:26, 27.

Conclusion: The context of these verses (chaps. 8 and 10 of Hebrews) clearly defines that they apply to the expanded Israel of God, under the Christian dispensation. After all, the new covenant is now available to all, Jews and gentiles, for the wall of separation was broken down through the abolition of the “ceremonial law”—not the “moral law” (Eph. 2:11 to 22). Thus, the theme of the divine law is not something that belongs to the Old Testament. On the contrary, it is a foundational component of theNew Testament, itself, certainly in its moral, not ceremonial aspects.

9) There are those who teach that the “law of Christ”, or His commandments (as in John 14:15), has nothing to do with the Decalogue, being such “law of Christ” the new norm for the Christian, which brings only nine of the 10 commandments of the “old fashioned” law (did Christ rupture with His Father, establishing a different law?). Although he speaks repeatedly of the “law of Christ”, Paul also speaks of the “law of God” with similar validity weigh (compare Rom. 7:22, 25; 13:8-10; with Gal. 6:2 e 1 Cor. 9:21).

James speaks of the law as based on love, and calls it “law of liberty” (Jas. 2:8-12). John speaks of law of God and law of Christ as if they were just one and the same, without distinction, along his epistles, 1st and 2nd John (e.g., 1 John 2:7; 3:2-4; 21-24; 4: 7-11, 19-21; 5:1-3 e 2 John vs. 5 e 6).

In the book of Revelation, God’s remnant people is characterized as those who “keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus” (Rev. 12:17 and 14:12). John describes a vision he had of God’s Temple, within which he contemplated the “ark of his testament” (Rev.11:19). Those who know the Bible are aware that the Ten Commandments were kept in this ark (Deu. 10:5). Why was it shown to John this “ark of his testament” in a clearly eschatological context? It’s because it represents the throne of God which is founded on justtice (the law) and mercy (the mercy seat).

Conclusion: Christ’s law and God’s law are just one and the same. Jesus declared: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). He stressed the principle of love to God and to the neighbor as the basis of His commandments, according to the same basic principles of God’s law since the beginning (Deu. 6:5; Lev. 19:18, cf. Mat. 22:37-40). For Paul, to be “under the law of Christ” is comparable to being in harmony with God’s law (1 Cor. 9:21).

10) Sometimes there is a clear misunderstanding regarding the tenor of Christ’s debates with the Jewish leaders on the validity of His cures on the Sabbath day. Jesus defends Himself of the Pharisees’ and Sadducees’ accusations (and those of certain contemporary leaders of Christendom nowadays) that He broke the Sabbath, clarifying being LAWFUL (in harmony with the law) to heal on the Sabbath (Mat. 12:12). What Christ condemned was not their practice of the Sabbath rest by them, for He Himself was an observer of this commandment (Luke 4:16), but the wrong spirit in which they practiced it. For that reason He said that “the Sabbath was made for man [not only for the Jews], and not man for the Sabbath” (Mar. 2:27), besides declaring Himself “Lord of the Sabbath” (Mat. 12:8). The tenor of His debates with the Jewish leadership was not IF they should keep the Sabbath, nor WHEN to keep the Sabbath, but HOW to keep the Sabbath in the due spirit.

Conclusion: The Jewish leaders didn’t corrupt only the meaning of the Sabbath commandment, but also of the 5th one (Mar. 7:8-10), as well as the tithing practice (Mat. 23:23), as already seen. However, Christ told His hearers (the multitudes and the disciples) to practice all that they said, although not following their bad example of “do as I say, but not as I do” (see Mat. 23:2, 3). Among the right things that they said was their insistence regarding a faithful observance of the Sabbath, even though they were wrong in condemning them for coming to seek healing on that day (Luke 13:14).

For following these discussions from the beginning see the initial article of the series “Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith” through this link:

http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=92549&page=1

On pages 1 and 2 of said discussions there are some other studies on the law and Sabbath questions, based also on 10 topics.

Azenilto,

I am by no means a supporter of Dale Ratzlaff. Not at all do I support him nor his tactics. However, on the point you bring up here, I think you are perhaps more in the wrong than Ratzlaff.

You see, I would agree with those statements of Ratzlaff.

Paul DID have his disagreements with Jesus, didn't he? He was "kicking against the pricks" until Jesus confronted him on his way to Damascus.

Do you think Paul always understood Jesus? Do you? I don't. I can only wish I did. Jesus' own disciples misunderstood Him when He spoke with them face-to-face...and rather frequently, at that. How can we suppose those of us who have come afterwards would be any better?

Paul may be your favorite Bible author, but he just so happens to be one of the most difficult to correctly understand. The imprecise wording which he frequently chose and his convoluted grammar have created a large number of the "problem texts" that Adventists struggle to explain today. I have heard it said that if it were not for Paul's writings, it would be easier to preach the Adventist message.

I do not doubt for a minute Ratzlaff's intention to misconstrue, misalign, and to criticize the Adventist church. But in this case, at least, I wouldn't try to argue with his quote of the pastor, only with his representation and understanding of it.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, why do you think God allowed Paul's epistles to become a part of the Bible? Was God powerless to prevent Paul's "imprecise wording" and "convoluted grammar" from making it difficult for Adventists to preach the truth as it is in Jesus? Or, do you think, as I do, that God purposely raised up and inspired Paul to explain the truth in his unique, challenging style? If so, why? That is, why would God choose someone like Paul to write a large portion of the NT? Was it because of or in spite of his way of writing? I think it was because of it. I think it serves to prove the divine origin of the Bible. Do you agree?

Ellen White wrote:

There are in the Scriptures some things which are hard to be understood, and which, according to the language of Peter, the unlearned and unstable wrest unto their own destruction. We may not, in this life, be able to explain the meaning of every passage of Scripture; but there are no vital points to practical truth that will be clouded in mystery. {CD 187.1}

The apostle Peter says that there are in Scripture "things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest . . . unto their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:16. The difficulties of Scripture have been urged by skeptics as an argument against the Bible; but so far from this, they constitute a strong evidence of its divine inspiration. If it contained no account of God but that which we could easily comprehend; if His greatness and majesty could be grasped by finite minds, then the Bible would not bear the unmistakable credentials of divine authority. The very grandeur and mystery of the themes presented should inspire faith in it as the word of God. {SC 107.1}

Mike,

My problem with Paul is that I have met too many people who are sincerely convinced he is saying things which I do not believe he said. Have you ever struggled to explain Paul to someone like this? How about a Mormon? A Jehovah's Witness? Try as you might, there seems no path to the person's soul. Satan has bound them up in a strong web of misconceptions. Is God powerless to break this? If not, why does He not break it?

The father-in-law of one of our church members back at home had a real enjoyment for deep and thorough study of the Bible. He was not, however, an Adventist. His beliefs, in fact, are sufficiently unique that I am not sure he belongs to any church. We invited him to our home several Sabbaths and discussed basic Adventist beliefs with him in Bible study fashion. He loved to study. But he had such strange ideas! And he had scripture to back him up!

I'm not a stranger to the Bible, but when I would bring a text that supported the truth, he had a different way of explaining the same text...almost every time. And, let me tell you, Paul was the biggest troublespot. Will God save the man in spite of his not accepting the Sabbath truth? the state of the dead? the judgment? Perhaps. But I cannot help but feel that God is sad when people choose to mishandle His Word, even if it is by "honest mistake."

Do you not think God is saddened when people are deceived, by whatever means they may have become so?

I am not saying Paul should not have written. I believe God wanted Paul to write. That is not the issue. However, there are certain points upon which Paul should have been more clear, and I believe God would have been honored by it. The chiefest of these has to do with the law.

I agree with the pastor(s) that Ratzlaff quoted as saying Paul has undermined the law. By his careless wording on this point, I believe Paul inadvertently did just that. For example, in the following statement, Paul omitted two words: "ye are not under the law." The omission of these two words, which would have cleared things up greatly, has caused the majority of our own Adventist pastors and members to misunderstand his meaning. Those words are "penalty of." Unfortunately, many are just too happy to throw out the law because of the imprecise wording here, in spite of the fact Paul also claims to "uphold the law."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, I don't see it the way you do. I do not think it is unfortunate Paul explained things the way he did. Nor do I wish he had explained things more clearly. I am convinced the letters he wrote were inspired by God. Every word.

Mike, do you see God as inspiring mistakes?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

wow, brother!!

sorry, but very scary!!

i mean i can understand wishing he were plainer, easier to understand but really!

our bibles are translations of the original, but even so i feel God Himself is being criticized here!!

it is, after all, God Himself, Who not only inspired the written word, but also inspired what was to be included in the bible.

as for those who will not believe thats pretty much on them. it doesnt matter how convincing anything is we all choose what we believe.

paul is very deep, but we will never fully understand the bible even if we could live as long as the antediluvians.

thank God for paul and his writings as "imperfect" as they may be!!

So when your understanding of what the bible ought to teach conflicts with what it acctually says, you choose to mend the bible? I guess that is one option you have, not a very good one but non the less an option.

Perhaps you haven't grasped what I am saying. I am not trying to teach anything non-biblical. What I am saying is that there are places where the Bible appears to teach something that it does not actually teach. Do you disagree with this? In those places, do you not think it might be easier to understand the Bible had the words been expressed more clearly to avoid such misunderstandings?

Paul was inspired. His writings fit in the Canon. They belong there, and he has much wisdom to share with us. Nor do I disagree with his message. I am commenting more on his manner of delivery of said message. It is because of his imprecision that many mistakes are made by those who read his writings. Is it 100% their own fault for misunderstanding? If so, what should they have done to make sure they did not misunderstand? What should God do? Would it be forcing their wills to cause them to understand?

Peter comments in the Bible about how people misunderstand Paul's writings to their own destruction. It is interesting to note that we do not see any other Bible author mentioned in this sort of light!



I guess what I'm saying is that it is a sad thing to see so many people go off the path to truth because of how they have misunderstood Paul. I have come across many people who are led astray because of his writings.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

He wrote like a lawyer at times. Convoluted, but I don't think he was imprecise. At least not in the original context.

And perhaps I am suggesting that if one comes upon a place in the bible that appears to teach something I do not think it acctually teaches, there could be many sollutions to the riddle. The most obvious is that I have either missunderstood what the passage says or what the bible says as a whole about the subject. In any of these cases the event is an invitation to more and deeper study. That the error would be with the author of the bible book in question comes very far down the list of things to consider when stumbling upon apparent missunderstandings.

The question i would ask is, if Adventism has a 'problem texts' issue with Paul, why is the first assumption that there is something wrong with Paul?

im glad to understand your point a little better....but spiritual things are spiritually understood comes to mind.

your reasoning seems to imply that if the scriptures were as plain as "they should be" people wouldnt go astray. i think that disregards the fact that we dont necessarily want God nor His ways, but our own.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

amen and amen!! the problem starts with me and my understanding.

Because it would take a whole lot more work on my part if there is something wrong with me. I'm not saying everybody is in that boat, but I'm sure there are not many empty seats in the boat.

im in the boat just so others dont feel alone.

but the study can be so much "fun"! one gets to learn a lot of things one didnt know that one didnt know. and get to see it come in handy in other situations.

one thing i learned a long, long time ago is that it is ok to be ignorant. cant learn anything if i dont cop to being completely ignorant. but this may be beside the point.

and i must confess to being upset with God and the word quite often for not making it much simpler and easier to understand.

but i guess He figures we need to grow synapses in our brains and we wouldnt be as much in the word as we should if He had made it easier.

The Great Disappointment comes to mind. Rev 10.

So do you feel that Paul's mistakes were equally inspired?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

who decided paul made mistakes? i mean paul was inspired. God oversaw what was to be included in the canon.

we certainly arent deciding that we, uninspired and definitely not God, are capable of deciding what "mistakes" are in the holy word, are we?

Teresa,

When I find a clear contradiction in the Word of God, one or the other is a mistake. I suppose one could "rob Peter to pay Paul" and say the mistake was "the other guy," but then that still does not settle the matter about their having been a mistake in the canon to begin with. However, I'm quite convinced as to who made the mistake.

Do you, Teresa, view the mistakes as inspired?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Oh, didn't think about that. Well, in such case..

Its high time you put your cards on the table. Which mistakes more exactly are you finding in Pauls writings? And compared to what general message are they mistakes?

Vaster,

This thread may not be the appropriate place to go into all of that. It is not a subject for the faint of heart, and I do not enjoy dwelling upon it. However, I am concerned for those who blindly deny that their Bibles can have any errors in them, as if that which is written in human language by imperfect men can still be as perfect and infallible as God. When such persons once run against a tough issue, their faith may shatter.

Here are a few somewhat opposing viewpoints from Mrs. White which help to set some boundaries on the topic of errors in the Bible.



That's a strong statement which, if applied with a broad stroke, would nullify all of the modern Bible translations as having been forbidden works. One must be careful to discern the context...in this case, the motives of those making the corrections. That this does not apply to every case or to every person is clear from the following quote.



Finally, Mrs. White hints that the Bible itself would become a battleground in the last conflict with Satan.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

thomas asked you specifically about pauls writings. this is an evasive answer with a manipulative question, but i believe the light is dawning.

are you refering to pauls writings or bible translations?

except here and in subsequent posts you very clearly seem to be saying that you are capable of knowing what pauls mistakes are.

as far as im concerned you are walking on dangerous ground and i want no part of it.

Teresa,

Please remember Christian courtesy here even if you disagree. Being scornful of others could never hope to win them to your side, even if you are right and they are wrong. In fact, I was tempted to merely ignore the request to post proof on Paul's imprecision, as I do not believe Christians do well to focus on the errors of the Bible. Yet I am feeling forced by your questions to show you that which you claim is "dangerous ground." It may well be. Please do not jeopardize your soul to read any further if you feel you do not wish to be apprised of any errors.

If you choose to read the evidence which follows, I think you will understand clearly how I can be "capable of knowing what pauls mistakes are" in this case.

This one involves some elementary-school math. Paul was mistaken by nearly 100 years. But a century, for a well-educated Jew, in an age when genealogies were fresh in the Jewish mind and culture, is hardly excusable.

The error comes just under 100 years, about 94 years if I calculate right. It is in Acts 13.




Paul is giving the time line here of the Jews for a number of centuries, as follows:

40 Years -- in the wilderness
450 Years -- time of the judges until Samuel
40 Years -- reign of Saul (only reference for years of Saul in Bible)

Continuing Paul's time line from the OT we have:
40 Years -- reign of David (2 Samuel 5:4, KJV)
40 Years -- reign of Solomon (1 Kings 11:42, KJV)
------------------
610 Years TOTAL (Exodus thru Solomon) PAUL'S FIGURE

Now, from the scribal record of the Kings and in the Chronicles, we have the following:

480 Years -- Exodus to 4th year of Solomon (1 Kings 6:1)
36 Years -- remainder of Solomon's reign
------------------
516 Years TOTAL (Exodus thru Solomon) ACTUAL FIGURE

Therefore, 610 - 516 = 94 years discrepancy.

Either the king's scribes were wrong, or Paul was wrong. You know who I choose. Lest you think that Paul's imprecision is limited to dates and genealogies, look carefully at what he wrote here:



He appears to think that anyone who focuses too much on the details is taking things too far, even when it concerns the law. Paul is not a detailed person. We pick apart his exact wording too often to our own hurt, when he never placed so much emphasis on the exact wording himself.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

insult at will.

it is bad enough when ellen whites writings are brought into question by supposed tampering or whatever, but i will have no part in any discussion that casts doubt on any part of the word of God.

i shall give this board a rest til this subject is over.

page 1:

Then start such a thread that is appropriate for this. You have spent too much time complaining about Pauls errors not to come clean on what exactly those errors are. Your concern for those with a blind faith in biblical inerracy is touching but may I remind you that what sets you free from a lie is truth, not suppressed truth. It is a strong statement, but it seems you and I read it in opposite ways. You apparently see it commenting those who would update archaic language from older translations to newer translations. I see it refering much more directly to what you have been doing here, with your repeated suggestion that Paul ought to have written differently than how he wrote in the interest of truth. It appears to me that in this thread, you was that man who "set themselves to correct the errors of the Bible."

This is it Greenie? Is this the best you could come up with? It is a well known fact that Kings and Chronicles occationally give differing information for the same events. That the same would apply to Paul is no good reason for your mini-crusade against him.

Vaster,

Did you look up the text? Find any authority whom you choose who would say that there is an error in the reckoning of it. It is one of the most accurate statements of time given in the Old Testament. Listen to it.



I believe God gave us this record for a reason. And it is accurate down to the month.

I did not set myself up to correct errors in the Bible. But neither do I turn a blind eye to the details that come to my attention, and just assume that two completely incongruous statements are somehow congruous just the same. One does not need to throw out all reason in order to believe the Bible. I agree with all of you here that one must not elevate one's own reason above the Bible, but God expects us to use reason nonetheless. "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD." (Isaiah 1:18).

Have I offered to "correct" any of the Bible here in this thread? Have I not rather pointed out some differences? If agreeing with the Bible in one place to the exclusion of another reference is "correcting" the Bible, then I would humbly ask any of you to show me how best I should understand these "problem texts" so that they are no longer a problem. Can you match them up to make them say the same thing? If so, I would be happy to be enlightened.

And let me be clear here. It is not fair to say that I am crusading against Paul. Such is not an accurate portrayal. What I am trying to communicate is that Paul's writings are perhaps the most frequently misunderstood, and that one must exercise caution in interpreting them. They are not, in Paul's words, "milk" but rather "meat." They are not easy to understand, but neither are they impossible. They can be understood. But they are in places on a similar level to Daniel and Revelation, all the while appearing deceptively easy to understand...thus leading many to adopt incorrect conclusions as to their intent.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Giving advice on how to best understand the problem texts is difficult as long as you refrain from sharing which texts those are.

That a text is difficult to understand is much different from saying that it is a case of "robbing Peter to pay Paul" or claim "clear contradiction" for it, just to reference one of your recent posts to this thread.

Indeed it is difficult. However, as we have already seen, pointing out the texts can be offensive to some people. Teresa would not believe me without the evidence and essentially demanded it. Once presented the evidence, however, she was completely offended by it, and I feel bad about it. I had tried to speak in very general terms without the details for this reason. And for this same reason, I will not give any further details here. There are other contradictions in the Bible. I will not here go into them.

Regarding the phrase "robbing Peter to pay Paul," it was a poor attempt at some mild humor, while still making a legitimate point. Your English is quite good, but as there are several non-native speakers of English participating here, and someone may misunderstand, let me explain the idiom. To "rob Peter to pay Paul" is a common expression in English which does not actually mean that one should steal anything. It is used to express the idea that a person may borrow a problem from a new source in order to cover a current problem. It can be used to buy time, or to simply shift the problem around from one place to another, without actually solving the original problem.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

my brother, you are not the first one i have come across who "criticizes" paul. there is a whole forum dedicated to eradicating paul from the bible. there are a few on another forum who are also saying similar things you are saying. all have the same tactics.



my brother, because you have not worked out your issues in regard to this you are placing doubt in others minds regarding the scriptures. your statements are very plain even tho you are trying to downplay them now.

it would be bad enough if a member started this but for a moderator of this board....you need to work out your problems with paul in a different manner. this could very well be the downfall of the ungrounded and unstable.

i do hope this ends now. perhaps you would like to start a thread where others could help with the perceived difficulties in pauls writings. i personally do not see where "Paul has undermined the law".

Teresa,

Consider these verses:



Compare Paul's "faulty" covenant that "is ready to vanish away" with Ellen White's words here:



Of course, I do not believe Paul meant to say what he appears to say. However, most Adventists today believe the appearance of what he is saying, and do not study carefully. Many non-Adventist Christians reject the entire "Old Testament" over these words and similar by Paul. In this, he has inadvertently undermined the law, in my opinion.

And yes, we have even had discussions about the validity of, for example, the book of Leviticus within Adventist circles.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Ellen would turn in her grave were she to know that her texts were used to trump Paul..

Greenie, you may IM your list of contradictions to me. Then we have something to work with.

No. Ellen White is not trumping Paul. She is explaining his meaning. There is no contradiction in this instance, only an apparent one, as I tried to make clear in the above post.

Do you see the "Old Covenant" as having been done away? If so, upon what basis? The texts I quoted above?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

In my view, Hebrews is in full agreement and in the tradition of Isaiah in the verses you quoted. If you find reason to take issue with Hebrews, you may also do the same with this OT prophet.

Hello, friends

I hadn't come to this forum for a while and didn't know about these latter discussions.

Well, I think that, first of all, Mr. Ratzlaff doesn't say that Paul conflicts with Jesus. So, whoever says that is in agreement with him about that missed the point totally. What he says is that certain SDA's would imply that, for not understanding Paul's writings and the role of the law (for which he is willing to help these poor confused souls to understand things better with his "new alliance" theology).

Also, Peter said that Paul wrote some few things hard to understand that would be distorted by some (then he employs some bad adjectives to label these), saying that the end of such people would be terrible (see 2Pet. 3:19-21).

I tried to put into perspective what Paul says regarding law and grace, faith and works, justification and sanctification. One problem I notice in his writings that is often misunderstood by many, is his dealing with local problems and issuing counsels and guidance that only apply to that specific situation, but that is taken as of universal value. This is typical of how Romans 14 and Colossians 2 are interpreted.

There is a large Evangelical denomination in Brazil where women are forced to wear a veil on their head in the church, cannot ever speak in public, and them all practice the holy kiss at the end of their services (both men and women, within their gender). They take some words by Paul that refer to culturally related matters as universal principles.

That could be an "innocent" and irrelevant point, but they have these customs as a kind of mark that defines them as the true followers of all that the Bible ordains, while all the others neglect these "inspired instructions". That is what happens when local is mistaken for universal, among other distortions.

The "under the law" phrase, for example, has different meanings, for Jesus was born "under the law" (Gal. 4:4), which doesn't mean he was under sin. . . In that specific case, it means, under the regimen of the integral law of Israel.

But in Gal. 5:16-18 we have a clear constrast between those who are "under the law" and the ones guided by the Spirit. The latter are those who produce the "fruit of the Spirit" (vs. 18), while the first are the ones who commit all those sins listed in vs. 19-21.

Also, there is the rethorical use of certain key words, as "law" in Rom. 7. Since he is speaking about "law", he uses that word to apply to the principle of sin itself ("the law of sin") and the positive desire of his heart to be in harmony with God ("the law of my mind"). Are there all these different types of law?! Now, he simply uses the term "law" as a play on words, and that is what many people can't understand, mostly due to their preconceived ideas, especially when they want having Paul as their ally in the cause of teaching the end of the Sabbath commandment of a supposedly abolished law (although nine out the ten continue intact despite the total "abolition" of said law. . .).

Well, see if my attempt to harmonize Paul's statement on God's law and God's grace makes sense, after all...

Amen to this! I remember in our discussions on penal substitution, the most difficult passages of Paul are used to "prove" this doctrine. On just about any subject, whether the divinity or Christ, or the atonement, or whatever, one can "find" texts from Paul to "prove" your position.

I also think the way you put this here is good. It's not that Paul did anything wrong, but people twist Paul to fit their mode of thought.

Obviously Paul had much in his favor, however, or God would not have had so much of the New Testament come from Paul. He was a brilliant and thoroughly converted follower of Christ.

I've been busy, and so have been "out of the loop" somewhat, so am catching up on this interesting thread. While I "Amened!" a comment earlier in this post, on this comment I feel constrained to point out I believe this point is highly unfair to Paul. The word "penalty" does not appear once in Scripture, hence it seems highly unfair to focus on Paul and criticize him for not using it.

This thought came to my mind as well. It could be that the problem is not that Paul was imprecise, but that we are just too spiritually dull to understand his profound thoughts.

Regarding #116598, GC, it looks like you're not understanding what the Old Covenant is. Paul was right! In Galatians he writes:



The Old Covenant "gendereth to bondage." It is done away with whenever one believes in Christ. Ellen White makes that point clear here:



Note the contrast. In the Old Covenant, the law is written upon tables of stone. In the New it's written upon the tables of the heart. In the Old, one goes about establishing one's own righteousness. In the New, one accepts the righteousness of Christ. The Old Covenant can't be done away with quick enough! We need the righteousness of Christ! Away with trying to establishing our righteousness!

It saddens me that there is so much confusion regarding the Covenants. Properly understood, Paul and EGW are in perfect harmony. Ellen White wrote:





So Waggoner's position is the "truth" and "clear" and "convincing." I agree! Waggoner has helped me tremendously in understanding the Covenants. Here's a gem from Waggoner on this subject:



Waggoner's point is brilliant! The Covenants are not matters of time, but of condition. Most people interpret Paul as dealing with the Covenants as matters of time, which is why they confuse what Paul is saying. But Waggoner has it right, and has given us the key! The Covenants are not matters of time, but of condition.

Tom,

Most Adventists fail of understanding God's covenant properly. The "New Covenant" is just the same as the "New Commandment" which Jesus gave...neither one is "new" as some people try to say. It is "new" in that it is reiterated, renewed, for us. The "New Covenant" was present in the Old Testament as well the New Testament. Whenever people broke the covenant, God was willing to make it new for them.



Here's what God instructed the ancient Israelites:



The two covenants are the same in content. They are different only in that the "Old Covenant" we broke. We needed a "better" one in the sense that we internalized it. That is represented in the "New Covenant" teaching. Notice what Mrs. White says about this here:



There is one other difference that we might point out in the covenants: The first covenant was represented with the blood of sacrifices, but when Jesus became the True Sacrifice for us, sealing the Abrahamic Covenant, it was called the "New Covenant." This is more a matter of semantics than anything else, as the covenant itself remains the same, and those animals sacrifices were the types which pointed to Christ.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The differences between the Covenants are made clear here:



The New Covenant involves the writing of the law in the heart. As the SOP puts it:



Here's the difference:

Old Covenant:We establish our own righteousness.
New Covenant:We accept the righteousness of Christ.

Instead of the law being written on tables of stone, it's written in the heart.

The key is what Waggoner pointed out, that the Covenants are not matters of time but of condition.

What happened at Sinai is that God offered the Israelites His Covenant, the New one, but rather than accept that, they initiated their own covenant, the Old one.

The following is from "The Glad Tidings". Since it's a long quote, I'll present it in regular text (instead of in a quote box)

"These Are the Two Covenants."

What are the two covenants?--The two women, Hagar and Sarah; for we read that Hagar is Mount Sinai, "which gendereth to bondage." That is, just as Hagar could not bring forth any other kind of children than slaves, so the law, even the law that God spoke from Sinai, can not beget freemen. It can do nothing but hold them in bondage. "The law worketh wrath:" "for by the law is the knowledge of sin." The same is true of the covenant from Sinai, for it consisted merely of the promise of the people to keep that law, and had, therefore, no more power to make them free than the law itself had,--no more power than they already had in their bondage. Nay, rather, it "gendered to bondage," since their making it was simply a promise to make themselves righteous by their own works, and man in himself is "without strength."

Consider the situation: The people were in the bondage of sin; they had no power to break their chains; but the speaking of the law made no change in their condition; it introduced no new feature. If a man is in prison for crime, you can not release him by reading the statutes to him. It was the law that put him there, and the reading of it to him only makes his captivity more painful.

"Then did not God Himself lead them into bondage?"--Not by any means; since He did not induce them to make that covenant at Sinai. Four hundred and thirty years before that time He had made a covenant with Abraham, which was sufficient for all purposes. That covenant was confirmed in Christ, and, therefore, was a covenant from above. See John 8:23. It promised righteousness as a free gift of God through faith, and it included all nations. All the miracles that God had wrought in delivering the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage were but demonstrations of His power to deliver them and us from the bondage of sin. Yes, the deliverance from Egypt was itself a demonstration not only of God's power, but also of His desire to lead them from the bondage of sin, that bondage in which the covenant from Sinai holds men, because Hagar, who is the covenant from Sinai, was an Egyptian. So when the people came to Sinai, God simply referred them to what He had already done, and then said, "Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine." Ex.19:5. To what covenant did He refer?--Evidently to the one already in existence, His covenant with Abraham. If they would simply keep God's covenant, that is, God's promise,--keep the faith,--they would be a peculiar treasure unto God, for God, as the possessor of all the earth, was able to do with them all that He had promised. The fact that they in their self-sufficiency rashly took the whole responsibility upon themselves, does not prove that God led them into making that covenant, but the contrary. He was leading them out of bondage, not into it, and the apostle plainly tells us that covenant from Sinai was nothing but bondage.

Further, if the children of Israel who came out of Egypt had but walked "in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised" (Rom.4:12), the law would never have been spoken from Sinai; "for the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith" (Rom.4:13). Faith justifies, makes righteous; if the people had had Abraham's faith, they would have had the righteousness that he had; and then there would have been no occasion for the entering of the law, which was "spoken because of transgression." The law would have been in their hearts, and they would not have needed to be awakened by its thunders to a sense of their condition. God never expected, and does not now expect, that any person can get righteousness by the law proclaimed from Sinai; and everything connected with Sinai shows it. Yet the law is truth, and must be kept. God delivered the people from Egypt, "that they might observe His statutes, and keep His laws." Ps.105:45. We do not get life by keeping the commandments, but God gives us life in order that we may keep them.

Tom,

You and I may disagree on this. I don't pay much attention to extra-prophetic sources. If you want to convince me on this issue, the Bible and EGW are sufficient, and nothing more.

I do not agree with your summation of what the covenants were. In my understanding, the covenants were God's law, and His promise that "this do and ye shall live." God has promised His blessings when we obey. That is the Covenant. And it is Salvation as the ultimate blessing.

As I pointed out before, Ellen White says both covenants had the same requirements.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

In other words, Tom, God is not our substitute in obedience. Jesus did not obey in our place, so that we do not have to. That is not what the new covenant is. Accepting Christ's righteousness means doing as He did--that is, surrendering our will to the Father and submitting to His authority by obedience to His law.

The Covenant still requires obedience to God's law as it always has. When we ask God to create in us a new heart, we renew our covenant with Him, and desire to obey Him more completely. This is the essence of the "New Covenant."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

If a prophetic source points to an extra-prophetic one (as you call it) and one doesn't pay attention to that, then one is not paying attention to the prophetic source either. Also EGW used the term "prophets" in reference to Jones and Waggoner, if that makes any difference. I don't see why it should. She said over and over again that God used them to send light to us and we should heed that light. It seems to me that should be enough.

Anyway, regardless of who said what about whom, if one simply looks at the arguments Waggoner presents, I'm constrained to agree with Ellen White's evaluation of them (which evaluation *is* prophetic) that it is "truth" and "clear" and "convincing."



I can't help but notice that your interpretation leads you to disagree with Paul and Ellen White, which I think should be seen as a warning sign that perhaps the view isn't correct. That you disagree with Paul, you've said yourself. It makes it challenging to demonstrate something is unScriptural if you're open to disagreeing with Scripture! I suppose I could try to show that Paul's view of the Covenants is correct by using some non-Pauline author, but, since Paul wrote far more on the subject than anyone else, that would be challenging. Also I don't know if it's OK to set some non-Pauline author aside as well.

Regarding Ellen White, as I pointed out, she endorsed Waggoner's view as "truth" and "clear" and "convincing." Here's another endorsement of hers on the subject:



Here she says that if Waggoner's position agreed with what she wrote in "Patriarchs and Prophets," then Waggoner had the truth. Shortly after then she identified Waggoner's position as the truth. Therefore it's not likely that Waggoner's position differs from hers, assuming we trust her ability to identify positions.

I am agreeing with Ellen White when she says both covenants had the same requirements, are you? I think you are the one in disagreement with her here. You are saying the covenants were different in their requirements. You try to tell me I am not accepting her writings, when in reality, it is the other way around.

Nor do I disagree with Paul. I disagree, perhaps, with your interpretation of Paul. In other words, I think you are the one disagreeing with Paul.

The quote you brought of Mrs. White's endorsement of Waggoner is rather vague, and I would feel on shaky ground to base my faith on it. First, she admits to not being fully apprised of Waggoner's position in saying "if that was Dr. Waggoner's position...." Secondly, she clearly states that she is giving her opinion here ("I believe"), and not a "thus saith the Lord." When she wrote her inspired books, she was not writing her opinions. However, the quote you brought here endorsing Waggoner was not from one of those books, though it did mention one of them. In other words, she is not saying "The Lord showed me Waggoner held the correct position relative to the Covenants." If she did, I would most certainly accept it.

Regarding the 1888 Message, for which Jones and Waggoner were largely responsible, and of which Mrs. White has also written much, Clifford Goldstein wrote the following, published in the Adventist Review:

Lest you misunderstand what he is saying, you can here read the full article.

However, the basic implication is that there is a lot of common ideas held about what the 1888 message was all about that are not what Ellen White perceived as the message of that time. From this, we might also conclude that not all of Waggoner's ideas matched hers. While she undoubtedly endorsed some, it does not mean she endorsed every word the man uttered, anymore than she endorsed everything that Uriah Smith wrote.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

talk about different ways of reading something!!

gc, you are reading her "i believe" as an opinion when it seems quite clear to others that she is saying it is something she holds as a belief, a sanctified belief at that.

i feel this is going to make you angry and i am sorry about that, but the problem seems to be more how you are reading something than what it is really saying.

then on top of that you seem to hold this person as an authority even higher than paul and ellen white.
so the question is, have you studied what ellen white said, studied jones and waggoner in light of her writings, and studied paul to see if they all match up?

following ernie is not the only snare the enemy has set up. following any human other than what we have been given is dangerous.

we were given paul by God Himself. we were given ellen white by God Himself. we were given j and w, also by God. and while i agree that they need to be read in the light of the bible/sop, we need to be very careful that we are not setting our faulty, fallible, understanding above what is clearly from God.

if our understanding does not match what they are saying our understanding is what is in error, not the bible/sop.

at heart of the issue seems to be that you believe we are capable, on our own, of even understanding what all the law entails and then obeying it. if my understanding of what you are saying is faulty please clarify.

Right, GC, the two covenants and Goldstein's "1888 message" which he objects to...

There are two meanings to old covenant: there's the Sinai declaration, "All that the Lord has said, we will do." That's the wrong covenant, of course. The sacrificial system is the proper old covenant..., looking to its fulfilment in Calvary and the full revelation of God's justice and mercy and better promise, etc: yes, spiritual rebirth with the law written on our hearts by receiving the mind of Christ in the experience of justification is both proper old covenant and new covenant, as well. The concurrent old and new covenants are the wrong and right covenants!

On Goldstein, he fails to resort to W & J's own writings, better at stating the 1888 message than EGW, as she herself said!! His article came out a few years after the Primacy of the Gospel Comm. report in the Review. The official analysis behind that report equally totally failed to examine W & J's own writings!!

That Committee was set up by Elder Folkenberg, in the mid-90s, under the GC AdCom (rather than ExCom), because he personally endorses what Elder Jack Sequeira teaches, and Folkenberg wanted to discern the accuracy of the 1888 Committee compared to the so-called "historic Adventists": his staff had taken 'readings' and found both of these fervent Adventist groups are influential in the NAD but the former producing a fire a loyalty to the church organisation among its readers with the latter producing, rather, general cynicism of their readers toward the same. The modern interpretation of historical writings and events making the two groups of readers react accordingly.

The "1888 Committee" so-called - Goldstein's "proponents" of the "1888 message" - who are actually the 1888 Message Study Committee - have merely published their collective understanding of reading J&W, and asking anybody else whether this can be true. When the leaders themselves take time to have a look, those leaders decide by majority among themselves that they won't look at J&W's own writings...: thus that report, a majority decision - again - of the panel of examiners as it was, is grossly naive, since it only looked at what was said about J&W and not what J&W said...!! A minority of that panel liked what they heard, and another minority just didn't know what to make of it - they coalesced with the third minority who didn't like what they heard: what a shambles! The full report is here posted here http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/Independent%20Ministries/PrimacyoftheGospel.htm

For a list of Bible, SOP and J&W quotes on each point of teaching - to put Goldstein in his place! try this...
http://www.gospel-herald.com/10truths/ten_truths.htm

Oh, the condition for salvation of perfect obedience to God is uncontested, but that condition involves both our qualification for heaven and the investigative judgement by Christ's imputed righteousness and our fitting for heaven by the investigative judgement by Christ's imparted righteousness, fulfilling Rev 19:8.

Rev 19:7 reads in the Greek (whichever manuscript stream you look at!): "...for the wedding of the Lamb came." This means that v.8 and that whole beginning of Rev 19 refers to the close of probation from other texts involving God's people on earth constituting the wedding dress of the Lamb's bride with their Christlike character traits: the close of probation is thus the wedding of the Lamb!

This interpretation is endorsed by Dwight Nelson at least, and I think both Richard Davidson - head of OT at the Seminary, and Jon Paulien - former head of NT at the Seminary, now Dean of Religion at Loma Linda (trying to bring them back from their liberal leanings, perhaps!) - among others...

The primacy of the Gospel group that filed their report did so in not the best of circumstances. A series of meetings had been going on for quite some time, and then a meeting was held with a secret agenda, to vote on this report, at a time when members who were in favor of what the 1888 MSC was sharing weren't present. I know of a member who was very upset that this happened, and said that, had he been present, he would have fought against it happening. It was a an episode which certainly doesn't inspire faith in those who took part in it.

Here's what Ellen White wrote in Patriarchs and Prophets.



Note this is very similar to what Waggoner wrote (which I quoted earlier). She contrasts the Old Covenant with the New: "Instead of going about to establish our own righteousness we accept the righteousness of Christ."

This is the difference between the two covenants in a nutshell. In one covenant, the old, one tries to establish one's own righteousness. In the other covenant, the new, one accepts the righteousness of Christ.

This is stated in such a simple way and easily understandable way, I don't know what it leaves to argue about.

Waggoner makes precisely the same argument she did. Ellen White says if Waggoner was teaching the same thing she taught in Patriarchs and Prophets, it was the truth. Shortly after this, she was it was the truth. What are we to conclude, if not that Waggoner was teaching the same thing she was in Patriarchs and Prophets? Indeed, logic doesn't allow for any other conclusion than this, does it?

Also one can see for oneself that they was teaching the same thing simply by reading what they wrote. I've quoted at length from both Ellen White and E. J. Waggoner, and one can readily see that they're making the same argument.

Regarding Paul, I quoted Gal. 4 where he says that the Old Covenant "gendereth to bondage." Now if the Old Covenant is simply the law (i.e. the 10 Commandments), then wouldn't that lead us to the conclusion that the 10 Commandments "gendereth to bondage"?

We also have the following statement of Paul's:



Now if the Old Covenant is the 10 Commandments, then how can it be said to be decaying and waxing old, and ready to vanish away?




If she writes:
a.If Waggoner agrees with what I wrote in Patriarchs and Prophets, then he has the truth.
b.Waggoner has the truth.
c.Waggoner's position on the Covenants is clear and convincing.
d.You are wasting your investigative efforts in trying to product a position on the Covenants different than Waggoner's

and you disagree with these statements, then clearly you are disagreeing with her.

I believe that Ellen White, and Waggoner, and Paul are all in agreement, and argument which follows logically from what Jeremiah wrote in Jeremiah 31:31-34.

Excellent question! This is exactly why I see Paul's writings as having been largely misunderstood on this point.

I believe the Old Covenant does include the Ten Commandments. What does "covenant" mean? It is a promise, an agreement, a contract, or perhaps we might even use the word "treaty." Who makes the Covenant? Two parties: God is the author of the covenant, and we accept it and promise to follow it.

When Paul speaks of the first covenant having been flawed, what was flawed? the law? No! God? No! It was us. We broke the treaty. We failed to fulfill the requirements we had covenanted to. Therefore, we had to make a new treaty with God, having broken the first one.

The new one had the same requirements as the former in what pertains to the keeping of the law. The difference is that we no longer need to sacrifice according to the sacrificial system, as Christ has fulfilled this.



Paul has here spelled out the flaw in the first covenant clearly. The flaw was us, not the law, not God, not the conditions of the covenant. And Ellen White tells us that the conditions of the covenant remain the same in the "New Covenant" as in the "Old Covenant" -- perfect obedience. She is right. God's law can never hope to have any other standard level of compliance than "perfect obedience."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Correction, GC! "Covenant" is a promise that is believed: it is not a contract, agreement or treaty, which are all the wrong structure. Nor do we promise to obey or do anything else!

Abraham believed God's promise, and we do nothing else, either! The law is fulfilled in Christ's life and recognises his death for our sins as the justice due us, but it is our belief in God's promise thus fulfilled in Christ which empowers us to have the righteous requirements of the law fulfilled in us.

A contract did happen between God and his only begotten Son, before the foundation of this world, that the Father would save this world should Christ fulfill the everlasting covenant to Abraham, etc. Christ's gospel history made that contract, since he told Mary Magdalene that he had yet to ascend to his Father: on reporting back that he'd done what was asked of him, the contract of salvation was made with his Father. The performance making the contract culminated in his death, but that was a contract - our belief in Christ constitutes no contract!

For these reasons and more beside we cannot promise anything: that hymn is in need of editing to: "Oh Jesus I have chosen to serve thee to the end." We are able to choose, but not to take on obligations: we choose to obey, but we may not promise.

GC, it was the agreement that was faulty. The people never should have initiated such an agreement in the first place. Instead of making promises to God, they should have simply believed the promises that God made to them.

God promised to write the law in their heart, but, in unbelief, they rejected that promise and made their own foolish promises to Him.



The underlined portion highlights their problem. Rather than accept the righteousness of Christ (this is what God had promised them; this is the New Covenant) they embarked upon their own Covenant, whereupon they sought to establish their own righteousness. This was never God's intent. God always wanted them to accept the righteousness of Christ.

You didn't respond to my point here:



You see the logic here, right?


Tom

Colin,

When you entered the "Marriage Covenant" that was not a contract? Not a commitment? only a "belief?"

Your picture here is not my picture. Far from it. God has given us the privilege of entering into a covenant relationship with Him, which is symbolically parallel to a marriage. He is the bridegroom, and we are the bride. The contract is binding--for life.

Abraham did more than believe. He acted. "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God." (James 2:21-23, KJV)

In other words, belief = faith in action = obedience.

God tells us that we can make promises to Him. There are references to how this should be done, or not done, and there are records to show how it was done.


Why, Colin, would God give rules for making promises with Him if we should never make Him a promise? Why would He not rather have said "Do not swear an oath to the LORD, neither vow any vow unto him" (my quote, not in the Bible)?

Indeed, we can make promises to God, and God is happy when we do so and keep our promise.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tom,

You and Colin basically stated the same thing. So please consider my response to him as responding also to the first part of your post.

As for the latter part, I fail to see how Ellen White made those four points, so I guess I'm not quite understanding the logic there.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Many are inquiring, "How am I to make the surrender of myself to God?" You desire to give yourself to Him, but you are weak in moral power, in slavery to doubt, and controlled by the habits of your life of sin.

Your promises and resolutions are like ropes of sand.

You cannot control your thoughts, your impulses, your affections. The knowledge of your broken promises and forfeited pledges weakens your confidence in your own sincerity, and causes you to feel that God cannot accept you; but you need not despair.

What you need to understand is the true force of the will.

This is the governing power in the nature of man, the power of decision, or of choice. Everything depends on the right action of the will. The power of choice God has given to men; it is theirs to exercise. You cannot change your heart, you cannot of yourself give to God its affections; but you can choose to serve Him.

You can give Him your will; He will then work in you to will and to do according to His good pleasure.

Thus your whole nature will be brought under the control of the Spirit of Christ; your affections will be centered upon Him, your thoughts will be in harmony with Him. {SC 47.1}

Desires for goodness and holiness are right as far as they go; but if you stop here, they will avail nothing. Many will be lost while hoping and desiring to be Christians. They do not come to the point of yielding the will to God. They do not now choose to be Christians. {SC 47.2}
Through the right exercise of the will, an entire change may be made in your life. By yielding up your will to Christ, you ally yourself with the power that is above all principalities and powers. You will have strength from above to hold you steadfast, and thus through constant surrender to God you will be enabled to live the new life, even the life of faith. {SC 48.1}

Tom,

In re-reading your last post, I do see one more thing I would like to comment on that is different to what Colin posted. You said the COI made their own covenant with God. After careful consideration of this, I agree with you. However, I would like to point out that God Himself had invited them into a Covenant, as we see in the verses which Mrs. White quoted from Exodus. What was this covenant? You did not quote the entire paragraph. I will do so here:



Here Mrs. White has equated the "New Covenant" with the "Abrahamic Covenant." It was into THIS covenant that God had invited His people. That they made a promise apart from a true understanding of God's covenant was a mistake on their part. However, this does not signify that they should not have made any covenant with God. Not at all. He was asking them to enter His covenant as He had also covenanted with Abraham.

This is the Covenant that I long to enter--deliverance from the bondage of sin. This covenant applies here and now, not to some future-date-in-time-because-we-cannot-stop-sinning kind of thing.

Mrs. White encourages us further in these words (emphasis supplied):

Apparently, then, there are such as keep His covenant!

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The law requires righteousness,--a righteous life, a perfect character; and this man has not to give. He cannot meet the claims of God's holy law.

But Christ, coming to the earth as man, lived a holy life, and developed a perfect character. These He offers as a free gift to all who will receive them.

His life stands for the life of men. Thus they have remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. More than this, Christ imbues men with the attributes of God. He builds up the human character after the similitude of the divine character, a goodly fabric of spiritual strength and beauty.

Thus the very righteousness of the law is fulfilled in the believer in Christ. God can "be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." Romans 3:26. {DA 762.2}

Yes, GC, that everlasting covenant, which God makes with us - not we with him! - is what the thunder and fire on the mount was supposed to remind Israel to latch on to rather than their own understanding!

Then and before then and till today, that is the two covenants we have to choose between: it does culminate in a marriage covenant, but that is only experienced by those who live through the close of probation! Those who die in faith don't experience that height of spiritual maturity which is perfect Christlikeness.

Still, God's promises of righteousness and all that are experienced in part as we journey with Jesus as far as the Father has for each of us to go in this life.

GC, in regards to your response to Colin, the following comes to mind:



I think you're looking at things in the way that "genedereth to bondage" as Paul puts it. That is, in terms of the "'mutual' affair" that Waggoner alludes to. I think what Waggoner wrote is correct, that the Everlasting Covenant is a promise, and our part is to believe. This does not give birth to bondage, but to freedom, as opposed to the mutual affair (the Old Covenant) which does give birth to bondage.

Regarding the 4 points, since I already quoted from the SOP regarding each one, I didn't think they'd be difficult to follow, but I'll restate the points and the quotes.

a.If Waggoner agrees with what I wrote in Patriarchs and Prophets, then he has the truth.



b.Waggoner has the truth.



c.Waggoner's position on the Covenants is clear and convincing.



d.You are wasting your investigative efforts in trying to product a position on the Covenants different than Waggoner's.



Here's what you wrote:



I'm assuming the difficulty in following the logic was related to not seeing how Ellen White made these four points. I hope how she made these points is clear now.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, I hope you will address my post.

Regarding the sentence in bold which you cited:



Nobody said anything about the *law* leading to bondage. It's the *covenant* that leads to bondage (i.e., the Old Covenant). There's nothing wrong with the law. The problem comes when one tries to establish one's own righteousness by it (the Old Covenant) as opposed to accepting the righteousness of Christ (the New Covenant), which point is made here:



Please note here that EGW is contrasting the Old Covenant with the New Covenant.

Having the law written on the heart is the essence of the New Covenant. In the Old Covenant, the law is only written on stone, which is why it gives birth to bondage. The New Covenant gives birth to freedom, because in it the law is written in the heart.

The problem is not one of the law, but of the heart.

it seems to be a problem of understanding what imparted righteousness is.

somehow it seems to be understood that if one is living by grace, or in the "Spirit" that they are ignoring the law.

we have to live the law perfectly,

not one slip,

no matter how minor ever.

we cannot.

Christ came, lived that perfect life and offers it to us as a gift.

not just a covering,

but inside, by faith.


the only way that we can obey the law is by accepting Christs righteousness, the "new man" in us, by faith.

anything else is self-righteousness, filled with self, filthy rags, etc.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Do you think Paul agreed with Esau?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, it's not clear why you are quoting the things you are. It appears you may be confusing the law with the covenant.

You said you were having trouble with the four points I cited, so I requoted them, along with the SOP references. Did this make things clear?

If you would write out what you are thinking, that would be helpful. Perhaps responding to the four points I made would be a good place to start. I underlined the portion of the quotes I thought most specifically applied, about 6 posts above this one.

Regarding if Paul agreed with Esau, of course not. The Ten Commandments is the "easy yoke" to which Christ referred in saying "My yoke is easy," and Paul knew that. It is the *covenant* that was bondage, not the law, as I mentioned previously.

The yoke comes about when the law is written on tables of stone as opposed to the tables of the heart. As long as the law is something outside of ourselves, we will be in bondage. But when we accept Christ's righteousness (the New Covenant, PP 372) as opposed to seeking to establish our own righteousness (the Old Covenant, PP 372) then, the law being written in our heart, we walk in freedom, as opposed to being in bondage.

the quote you provided proves my point. are you seeing me as sayin something differently?

no.

but it seems you do. and that is very sad that you dont seem to have a clue what pauls points are.

its like paul said the sky is blue today, but somehow your mind is hearing him say, the sky is green today.