Forums118
Topics9,199
Posts195,600
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
|
|
6 registered members (Karen Y, dedication, ProdigalOne, Kevin H, Daryl, 1 invisible),
3,050
guests, and 20
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
Re: Lesson #6 (4th Quarter 2011): The Priority of the Promise
[Re: asygo]
#137204
11/01/11 03:27 AM
11/01/11 03:27 AM
|
OP
SDA Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,583
California, USA
|
|
God’s covenant with Abraham was not a treaty between two individuals, where mutually binding promises are made. On the contrary, God’s covenant was based on nothing other than His own will. No string of “ifs, ands, or buts” was attached. Abraham was simply to take God at His word.
I did not like this. God's promises are given on condition of obedience. We must surrender to Him if we are to be beneficiaries of all His blessings. There are ifs, ands, and buts in God's plan. The beneficiary of God's covenant was Abraham and his children. But we are told that Abraham's "children" are those who are of faith. That means that God's promises are only for those who are of faith. But even a human will has ifs, ands, and buts. The inheritance goes to the children of the deceased. When Jesus died, He bequeathed a glorious inheritance to His children. So, you only get it if you are His child.
By God's grace, Arnold
There is no excuse for any one in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. RH 12/20/1892
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson #6 (4th Quarter 2011): The Priority of the Promise
[Re: Mountain Man]
#137230
11/02/11 12:53 AM
11/02/11 12:53 AM
|
OP
SDA Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,583
California, USA
|
|
That means God knew Abraham would meet the conditions, not that there are no conditions.
Last edited by asygo; 11/02/11 04:17 PM.
By God's grace, Arnold
There is no excuse for any one in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. RH 12/20/1892
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson #6 (4th Quarter 2011): The Priority of the Promise
[Re: Mountain Man]
#137242
11/02/11 04:24 PM
11/02/11 04:24 PM
|
OP
SDA Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,583
California, USA
|
|
Are you saying that if, when God told Abraham to offer the sacrifices in Gen 17, Abraham said, "No, God; if you want it, you do it yourself," he still would have been the beneficiary of the New Covenant? If Abraham said, "Forget old Sarah; I'm going to stick with Hagar and Ishmael," and ran off with them, everything would have still worked out for him?
By God's grace, Arnold
There is no excuse for any one in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. RH 12/20/1892
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson #6 (4th Quarter 2011): The Priority of the Promise
[Re: asygo]
#137258
11/03/11 05:51 PM
11/03/11 05:51 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
I did not like this. God's promises are given on condition of obedience. We must surrender to Him if we are to be beneficiaries of all His blessings. What they say in the quote you provided is not in complete agreement with what I learned in my theology classes. They said: A covenant and a will are generally different. A covenant is typically a mutual agreement between two or more people, often called a “contract” or “treaty”; in contrast, a will is the declaration of a single person. The Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, never translates God’s covenant with Abraham with the Greek word used for mutual agreements or contracts (syntheke). Instead, it uses the word for a testament or a will (diatheke). Why? Probably because the translators recognized that God’s covenant with Abraham was not a treaty between two individuals, where mutually binding promises are made. On the contrary, God’s covenant was based on nothing other than His own will. No string of “ifs, ands, or buts” was attached. Abraham was simply to take God at His word. A diatheke is also a mutual agreement; not, however, between equals, but between a superior and an inferior. In a syntheke there are mutual obligations or conditions to be fulfilled, and mutual promises. In a diatheke the superior makes all the promises, and states the obligations to be fulfilled by the inferior so that the promises may be fulfilled. The inferior party just accepts or rejects the agreement with its promises and conditions. A covenant is an agreement between parties, based upon conditions. If Israel would obey the divine law and thus fulfill the conditions of their covenant with God, he would verify his promises to them. But what presumption for them to expect a blessing while they were violating the conditions upon which alone it could be bestowed!” {ST, December 22, 1881 par. 5} “God's people are justified through the administration of the ‘better covenant,’ through Christ's righteousness. A covenant is an agreement by which parties bind themselves and each other to the fulfillment of certain conditions. Thus the human agent enters into agreement with God to comply with the conditions specified in His Word. His conduct shows whether or not he respects these conditions. Man gains everything by obeying the covenant-keeping God. God's attributes are imparted to man, enabling him to exercise mercy and compassion. ... It is not enough for us to have a general idea of God's requirements. We must know for ourselves what His requirements and our obligations are. The terms of God's covenant are: ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself’ (Luke 10:27). These are the conditions of life. ‘This do,’ Christ said, ‘and thou shalt live’ (verse 28).” - Ms 148, 1897 {12MR 53.4, 54.1}
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson #6 (4th Quarter 2011): The Priority of the Promise
[Re: Mountain Man]
#137262
11/03/11 07:26 PM
11/03/11 07:26 PM
|
OP
SDA Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,583
California, USA
|
|
That's not what happened. Jesus merely stated what did happen. Again, Jesus knows the future like history. You and I are on the same page regarding God's foreknowledge. (Side topic: Where is Tom, BTW? I have not seen him for a long time.) Yes, Jesus knew what would happen. And He said in advance what would happen. But that does not nullify the conditions, which He knew would be met by Abraham.
By God's grace, Arnold
There is no excuse for any one in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. RH 12/20/1892
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
|
|