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.

There wasn't any doubt in Jesus' mind Abraham would be faithful, therefore, He could confidently announce that Abraham would be the father of a chosen nation, and that Israel, in spite of all her faults and imperfections, would eventually bring forth the Messiah. I suspect this is why Jesus didn't announce it in conditional terms. He knew it would play out the way it did. Who in particular would benefit from Jesus' messianic mission was a different issue altogether. Whether or not this or that person would be saved depended totally on whether or not they met the conditions of salvation.

That means God knew Abraham would meet the conditions, not that there are no conditions.

I'm not sure. Seems to me Jesus simply stated the facts, namely, Abraham was going to have a child through whom he would be the father of a great nation and through whom the Messiah would come. No question about it. As such, it seems to be one of the many unconditional promises or prophecies where human choices are involved. For example, the prophecy regarding the mark of the beast will happen exactly as described in the Bible - notwithstanding the fact it involves the choices of many, many humans. As I've said before - Jesus knows the future like history.

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?

That's not what happened. Jesus merely stated what did happen. Again, Jesus knows the future like history. Ellen wrote: "I AM means an eternal presence; the past, present, and future are alike to God. He sees the most remote events of past history and the far distant future with as clear a vision as we do those things that are transpiring daily. {14MR 21.3}

What they say in the quote you provided is not in complete agreement with what I learned in my theology classes.

They said:



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}

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.

That sounds much closer to my understanding of God's covenant with us. And apparently, EGW agrees.

Yes. The incorrect idea that God's covenants with His people are just His promises was defended by Waggoner. In this he was clearly in disagreement with Ellen White.

Seems to me Abraham's role was pretty minimal when viewed in light of everything that happened between the birth of Isaac and the birth of Jesus. God simply told Abraham he would have a son through whom the Messiah would eventually come. Everything depended on God choosing to work with the nation of Israel. The conditions of the promise rested with God - not Israel. That is, it rested with God to impregnate Mary with Jesus. God didn't ask Mary's permission. He simply told her - You're going to give birth to the Messiah.


He said he is busy. I suspect the whole NJK Project debacle burned him out.

Yes, his part was quite minimal, but necessary. Here's how the SOP describes it:
One can look at the situation this way: "God made His promises unilaterally, with no conditions upon man." Or one can look at it this way: "God made His promises to a man whom He knew would meet the conditions." I go with the latter.


I'm sorry I missed most of that debacle. Well, actually, not that sorry. I'm more sorry for those who had to go through it.

The less said on the NJK destructive conflict the better.....

Now, what do you all think of the commentary 'While both the ceremonial and moral law were “added” at Sinai because of transgression, we will see by considering the following question that Paul appears to have the moral law primarily in mind,' and how do you all read the answer to Tuesdays question....

In Galatians 3:19–29 Paul makes multiple references to “the law.” What law is Paul primarily referring to in this section of Galatians?

"23 Before the coming of this faith,[a] we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian."

As usual, I get to teach this lesson, and the moment I read this and tell them it literally means..... 'Before the coming of this faith of Christ, we were held in custody under the Moral Law, locked up until the faith of Christ was revealed. So the Moral Law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith of Christ has come, we are no longer under a guardian of the Moral Law.'

The bethren will instinctively pick up rocks and stones as they hear what I am saying........

Yes, I like that one, too. The conditions, however, also applied to his descendants, the nation of Israel. That is, Jesus knew they would meet the conditions.

Yes, the 10Cs were added at Sinai in the sense they were written on stone. They are added in another sense when Jesus writes them on our newborn hearts.

Keep ducking until you get to this week's lesson. "What law is the schoolmaster to bring us to Christ? I answer: Both the ceremonial and the moral code of ten commandments."

They agreed, actually, but got to have the whole context for that.

The covenant God made with Abraham concerns justification by faith, not also sanctification, though that part - condition - of salvation was implicit, already, too. Waggoner taught a JBF which makes the believer a converted, doer of righteousness: rebirth is part of JBF, after all, so that we may use God's power to obey him, becoming children of God in JBF by that same power.

God's promise to Abraham didn't call immediately for the obedience of Mount Moriah, but for taking God at his word, trusting God as telling the truth. The Quarterly is thus correct, limiting that moment to God's promise and miracle of a new heart in Abraham: JBF, or RBF which is the experience of justification - i.e. receiving the promised gift of salvation.

It's all about the promises of God, here, in this week's lesson, remeber.

Both laws indeed were our guardian, the moral law still so, since Christ prioritises himself, the law-giver, over the written law, for those who believe, writing the 10C on our heart with our birth from above (Jn 3:3b, marg.).

Nice reminder of the 'defence' of the law conflict, RickH.

Doesn't justification have conditions?

Zacharias disbelieved and yet the pronouncement (promise, prophecy) was fulfilled precisely as declared. "And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season." Luke 1:20. His disbelief did not derail the pronouncement.

Then why is it that most people will be on the broad road and be destroyed? What derailed the promise for them? Does God want them to die?

Aren't you talking about a different situation? Pronouncing what will surely happen (i.e. the birth and ministry of John) isn't the same as offering salvation on condition.

Yes, they are different situations. That's the point. When we are talking about salvation - justification, sanctification, glorification - there are conditions to be met.



When you are talking about things that have no conditions, that's a different situation.

What condition could be for conversion but faith to start as we are born again??? That's what Abraham did - he believed God's stupendous promise.

In justification we are made alive spiritually because we accept Jesus as Saviour from sin: a new heart - no conditions other than choosing faith, so...no.

Conditions of obedience characterise the life of faith, exercising our justified, new heart, which is the mind of Christ: otherwise called sanctification. Justification itself - the moment of choosing faith and experiencing rebirth of the Spirit - has no conditions, but continuing beyond the choice is conditional.

Thank you for clarifying the two different points. I agree with you. However, what does it say about freewill in cases where Jesus pronounces how the future will play out? Let's consider a different sample. In the Revelation Jesus pronounces how the future will play out in surprising detail. How can He know the future choices of so many people spread out over hundreds of years in advance?

Also, has He known for eternity who will make up the 144,000? If so, what does that say about freewill?

Perhaps this is what you're saying: God requires the entire surrender of the heart, before justification can take place; and in order for man to retain justification, there must be continual obedience, through active, living faith that works by love and purifies the soul. {FW 100.1}

The way I see it is that justification is conditioned upon entire surrender of the heart, and continued justification is conditioned upon continual obedience and living faith.

I don't see freewill as being obstructed by God's perfect knowledge of how we will exercise our free will.

Pretty much, yes: that heart action is in reality a heart response and a decision for God's truth.

Are you aware that teaching a purely forensic justification by faith bars Gospel mandated, sanctified obedience from the life based on such a teaching? Full submission to Christ is the rebirth, not so? - that rebirth is the heart of the experience of justification, opening the way to full righteousness by faith, in a life obedience. Are we clear on that basis for obedience, in the church? - not that I've seen and heard!

Unless it's clear that justification is the experience of the new birth, sanctified obedience cannot practically be included in the gospel required of us, hence perfect obedience is totally abandoned and it's just try your best. Without God giving us a new heart at the start, we cannot live that new life at all. Obedience is possible at all only as justification is taught to include the regeneration of the Spirit; else, obedience is but our best efforts....filthy rags. The genuine article needs the genuine foundation of the experience of justification.

Amen!