|
Forums118
Topics9,194
Posts195,567
Members1,323
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
2 registered members (2 invisible),
3,151
guests, and 17
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: The Covenants
#11812
12/12/04 05:31 AM
12/12/04 05:31 AM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Mike, I don't think you're understanding the covenants. If you were, you would be representing Waggoner's view, which is "truth" as well as "clear and convincing." I suggest you read it carefully. It's very easy to understand I think. Here's a couple of statements from PP that may be helpful: quote:
If man had kept the law of God, as given to Adam after his fall, preserved by Noah, and observed by Abraham, there would have been no necessity for the ordinance of circumcision. And if the descendants of Abraham had kept the covenant, of which circumcision was a sign, they would never have been seduced into idolatry, nor would it have been necessary for them to suffer a life of bondage in Egypt; they would have kept God's law in mind, and there would have been no necessity for it to be proclaimed from Sinai or engraved upon the tables of stone. And had the people practiced the principles of the Ten Commandments, there would have been no need of the additional directions given to Moses. (PP 364)
quote:
God brought them to Sinai; He manifested His glory; He gave them His law, with the promise of great blessings on condition of obedience: "If ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then . . . ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation." Exodus 19:5, 6. The people did not realize the sinfulness of their own hearts, and that without Christ it was impossible for them to keep God's law; and they readily entered into covenant with God. Feeling that they were able to establish their own righteousness, they declared, "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient." Exodus 24:7. They had witnessed the proclamation of the law in awful majesty, and had trembled with terror before the mount; and yet only a few weeks passed before they broke their covenant with God, and bowed down to worship a graven image. They could not hope for the favor of God through a covenant which they had broken; and now, seeing their sinfulness and their need of pardon, they were brought to feel their need of the Saviour revealed in the Abrahamic covenant and shadowed forth in the sacrificial offerings. Now by faith and love they were bound to God as their deliverer from the bondage of sin. Now they were prepared to appreciate the blessings of the new covenant. (PP 371,372)
If what you said were true, the COI would not have had a need to return to the Abrahamic covenant. Jeremiah 31 (and Hebrews 8) makes clear the shortcomings of the Old Covenant.
Regarding what leads to bondage, I'll give a short answer, but Waggoner, the instrument which God used to communicate this truth to us, is more eloquent on this than I, so I would like you to read what he writes.
What led to bondage was unbelief. Note how Jeremiah responded to the same promise God gave to the COI: "Amen." That's how one should respond to a promise, not "all that the Lord has said, we will do."
Everything the people needed was included in the manifold promise God made to Abraham. When the people in their unbelief undertook a new covenant with God, they were attempting to establish their own righteousness. They were seeking a law/rules based religion. They felt they could be righteous by what they did or did not do. Many have this same misunderstanding today. The Old Covenant is not a matter of time, but of condition.
God, being the gracious and wise God that He is, accomodated their request and provided rules for them as well as a much more detailed sacrificial system. He did this so the people could clearly see they did not have the righteousness necessary to meet the demands of the Law, and also that they might learn more of the ministry of Christ.
If the people had believed that promise that God made to Abraham and repeated to them, a new covenant (the Old covenant) would never have been formalized. The people would have believed the manifold promise God made, and would have been justified by faith which is manifest by obedience to the law of God, just as Abraham was.
For your convenience, I'm reposting the Waggoner links:
http://www.brooklawn.org/Books/GladTidings/GT04RedeemedfromtheCurse.htm (read the paragraph titled, "The Covenants of Promise")
http://www.brooklawn.org/Books/GladTidings/GT05TheAdoptionofSons.htm (read the 4 consecutive sections "These are the Two Covenants" "The Two Covenants Parallel" "Difference Between the Two" "Mount Sinai and Mount Zion")
|
|
|
Re: The Covenants
#11813
12/12/04 11:14 PM
12/12/04 11:14 PM
|
|
|
Tom, is it not troubling to you that Waggoner's book Glad Tidings contains heretical pantheistic teaching? That, to me, disqualifies it as an authoritative source of truth. It was written in 1900, well after Waggoner's 'glory days' of 1888 and soon thereafter.
|
|
|
Re: The Covenants
#11814
12/13/04 12:38 AM
12/13/04 12:38 AM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
John, it might be troubling if I didn't know of what Waggoner's teachings were from the 1880's through 1900, as well as the hundreds of endorsements from EGW. Those who accuse Waggoner of pantheism are generally lazy and have no idea what he actually taught. They twist his teachings and make him an offender for a word. Waggoner's teachings on the Covenants did not change one iota from the Sabbath School lessons in 1890 which EGW endorsed to what he presented in The Glad Tidings. We have the following statement from the Spirit of Prophesy: quote:
It is quite possible that Elder Jones or Elder Waggoner may be overthrown by the temptations of the enemy; but if they should be, this would not prove that they had had no message from God, or that the work that they had done was all a mistake. But should this happen, how many would take this position, and enter into a fatal delusion because they are not under the control of the Spirit of God. (1888 Mat. 143)
There are those who for whatever reason (according to the Spirit of Prophesy, because they are not under the control of the Spirit of God) who simply do not wish to believe the light God has given us through His messengers Jones and Waggoner and will strain at whatever opportunity they have in order to do so. The Spirit of Prophesy labels this a "fatal delusion."
|
|
|
Re: The Covenants
#11815
12/13/04 01:54 AM
12/13/04 01:54 AM
|
|
|
quote:
Those who accuse Waggoner of pantheism are generally lazy and have no idea what he actually taught.
1) I don't have to 'accuse' Waggoner of teaching pantheism. It's an absolute undeniable fact that he taught pantheism, as early as 1900. I posted a quote from Glad Tidings earlier in this thread that is clearly pantheistic. Did you miss that? There are others that could be posted here as well.
2) I'm not lazy.
3) I have a real good idea what he taught, at various stages of his career. His and Jones' 1888 message of righteousness by faith was light directly from heaven. But some things they taught later on were not.
Are you trying to say that EGW endorsed a book, Glad Tidings, that contained pantheistic teaching? In view of all the warnings she gave about J.H. Kellogg's pantheistic book Living Temple, three years later?
|
|
|
Re: The Covenants
#11816
12/13/04 05:44 AM
12/13/04 05:44 AM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
She endorsed Waggoner's teaching on righteousness by faith. His teachings on righteousness by faith did not change in the Glad Tidings. They are the same as what he taught in 1888, in the Signs of the Times arcticles, in "Christ and His Righteousness" and the many other books he wrote, in "The Gospel in Galatians" which was passed out at the 1888 General Conference session, and the same as A. T. Jones taught. If you're familiar with Waggoner's teachings, you will know that he did not intend for the passage you quoted to be taken literally. If you've read "The Everlasting Covenant" by him, you will know what his thinking was when he wrote what he did. This is what I'm talking about making him an offender for a word. Here's what E. G. White wrote: quote:
Man broke God's law, and through the Redeemer new and fresh promises were made on a different basis. All blessings must come through a Mediator. Now every member of the human family is given wholly into the hands of Christ, and whatever we possess--whether it is the gift of money, of houses, of lands, of reasoning powers, of physical strength, of intellectual talents--in this present life, and the blessings of the future life, are placed in our possession as God's treasures to be faithfully expended for the benefit of man. Every gift is stamped with the cross and bears the image and superscription of Jesus Christ. All things come of God. From the smallest benefits up to the largest blessing, all flow through the one Channel--a superhuman mediation sprinkled with the blood that is of value beyond estimate because it was the life of God in His Son.
(FW 22)
This is close to what Waggoner wrote, and clearly enunciates what Waggoner had in mind.
And all of this is irrelevant. If you are familiar with Waggoner's teachings, you know all of this already. What we were talking about was Waggoner's (and Jones, who taught the same thing) view of the Covenants. His ideas are clearly enunciated in The Glad Tidings, have not a scintila of pantheism in them, and are identical to what he taught on the subject during the time he was being enthusiastically endorsed by EGW, and in particular with the Sabbath School lessons that she specifically endorsed in 1890.
(BTW I didn't have you in mind with the "lazy" comment. A lot of people accuse Waggoner of pantheism without knowing what he actually taught. Pantheism is "the belief that all reality is essentially divine, i.e., that there is no distinction between the creator and the creation." This is not even close to what Waggoner taught.)
|
|
|
Re: The Covenants
#11817
12/13/04 12:18 PM
12/13/04 12:18 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
Tom,
I'm not being able to reconcile Waggoner's view with EGW's writings. What is the covenant that EGW mentions God made with the israelites at Sinai?
"God graciously spoke his law and wrote it with his own finger on stone, making a solemn covenant with his people at Sinai. God acknowledged them as his peculiar treasure above all people upon the earth. Christ, who went before Moses in the wilderness, made the principles of morality and religion more clear by particular precepts, specifying the duty of man to God and his fellow-men, for the purpose of protecting life, and guarding the sacred law of God, that it should not be entirely forgotten in the midst of an apostate world." {RH, May 6, 1875 par. 14}
"The Lord made a covenant with Israel that, if they would obey His commandments, He would give them rain in due season, the land should yield her increase, and the trees of the field should yield their fruit. He promised that their threshing should reach unto the vintage and the vintage unto the sowingtime, and that they should eat their bread to the full and dwell in their land safely. He would make their enemies to perish. He would not abhor them, but would walk with them and would be their God, and they should be His people. But if they disregarded His requirements, He would deal with them entirely contrary to all this. His curse should rest upon them in place of His blessing. He would break their pride of power and would make the heavens over them as iron and the earth as brass. 'Your strength shall be spent in vain: for your land shall not yield her increase, neither shall the trees of the land yield their fruits. And if ye walk contrary unto Me,' 'then will I also walk contrary unto you.'" {2T 661.1}
|
|
|
Re: The Covenants
#11818
12/14/04 05:22 AM
12/14/04 05:22 AM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Roseangela, I'll be happy to answer your question as best I can, but would like to reiterate the following points:
1) E. G. White endorsed Waggoner's view, calling it "truth."
2) E. G. Whtie's view is also truth.
3) Therefore they must agree.
Pretty straightforward logic, isn't it? Waggoner's views are easy to follow and based on Scripture. The links I gave answer the questions you have been answering very clearly.
What happened at Sinai is that God reiterated the manifold promise He had made to Abraham which included all that was needed. It included:
a) an inheritance, which was land, the earth made new
b) everlasting life
c) the resurrection
d) righteousness
e) forgiveness of sins
f) God Himself
g) Christ
The people did not understand what God was saying. Because of their misunderstanding, they sought to establish their own righteousness. This is brought out in the PP chapter on the Law and the Covenants.
The people, because of their unbelief, desired a rules-based religion. The Lord, being gracious as He is, accomodate them with the hope that they would return to the manifold promise He had made with Abraham. This is also brought out in the same PP chapter.
The Lord specified rules, and also laid out in more detail the sacrificial system. Because of the Lord's hand, there is much good about the Old Covenant. However, it is faulty because it is based on inferior promises. What are these inferior promises? The promises of the Lord? No way! His promises are always perfect and cannot be improved on. The inferior promises were the promises of the people. It is also these inferior promises that lead to bondage, as a system of works-rightouesness always does. Paul discusses this in great detail in Galatians.
The confusing thing is that there were two covenants going on at Sinai. There is the Everlasting Covenant, which Abraham believed, and is the only Covenant by which righteousness can be found, which is by faith in Christ. This is also brought out in the PP chapter. There is also the Old Covenant going on. So when EGW makes statements about the Covenant at Sinai, we need to determine from the context which Covenant she is talking about.
I hope this helps.
I'd like to ask you a question. I take it from you comments that you have read Waggoner's teaching on the covenants. Do you not find it beautiful? I do. And elegant as well. Well might she have described it as "clear and convincing." I know of noone who has ever taught it as clearly as he has.
|
|
|
Re: The Covenants
#11819
12/14/04 07:39 AM
12/14/04 07:39 AM
|
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,664
Plowing
|
|
The one aspect that must be more highlighted is Tom's quote, "The inferior promises were the promises of the people."
What inferior promises? Here, I see it:
Exodus 19:8 "And all the people answered together, and said, 'All that the LORD hath spoken we will do.'
Now if as Adventists we know that we cannot keep the Ten Commandments in our own strength, if we cannot do right without being born again and having Christ working through us with His mind and heart, than this pitiful and misguided human "promise" of the Jews at Sinai is a prideful boast at least, a paganistic legalism at worst.
God knew very well that they couldn't keep this promise, but took what He could from them (as a human father would take his kindergartener's fingerpainting "artwork") with the idea of educating them further in time.
Don't forget: the Hebrew nation had been under a slavery in the most horrificly sadistic and occult civilization of all time, up to that point in post-Flood history. Ancient Egypt, if one studies it with Bible-eyes, would make Nazism look like a picnic! The Jews were mentally lower than post Civil War slaves, beaten up by Satan almost beyond recognition.
[ December 14, 2004, 05:00 AM: Message edited by: Ikan ]
|
|
|
Re: The Covenants
#11820
12/14/04 12:57 PM
12/14/04 12:57 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
Tom,
What you seem to be saying is that God made the new covenant with Israel, but since they desired a rules-based religion, He specified some rules so that they could make a covenant with Him based on these? Am I understanding it correctly?
Such a position (if I'm understanding it correctly) would hardly make sense to me.
I took the time to read again (I had already done so in the past) the two links you provided and verified that Waggoner and Ellen White do say many things in common, and in fact I see in Waggoner’s writings the same difficulties I see in EGW’s definition of the covenants.
You interpret Waggoner as saying that the people initiated the old covenant based on rules that God specified. One of the main problems I see with this is God ratifying a salvation-by-works covenant. Church theologians, also claiming to be based on Waggoner, say that the problem was not with the covenant (which was the new covenant or covenant of grace), but with the Israelites’ response (which transformed it in the old covenant or covenant of works). One of the main problems I see with this is that both the Bible and Ellen White make a clear distinction between the covenant of grace and the covenant made at Sinai.
|
|
|
Re: The Covenants
#11821
12/14/04 07:08 PM
12/14/04 07:08 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Roseangela, let's stick with Waggoner for a bit. Are there any things about his presentation that aren't clear? If so, please post a little snip and ask a question, and we can discuss it. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
