There are two different things going on her. Actually three. The first thing is that God offered the people the same covenant as He made with Abraham. At the time He said to them, "If you will hear my voice, and obey My covenant ..." the Old Covenant didn't exist yet. Her referred to "My covenant," which is the Everlasting Covenant, the same covenant God made with Abraham, the only covenant in existence at this time.

This is thing 1.

The people then did thing 2, which was to respond in unbelief. To use Sister White's words, rather than accept the righteousness of Christ (i.e., accept thing 1) they sought to establish their own righteousness (thing 2, the Old Covenant, a bad thing, which leads to bondage).

This is thing 2.

Then God, being gracious as He is, met them where they were. If they would not keep step with Him, He would keep step with them. Instead of accepting the righteousness of Christ, they wanted to establish their own righteousness. They wanted to do things. So God gave them things to do. Things which would prepare them to accept the righteousness of Christ, which was His plan all along.

If we understand things this way, everything ties together.

Under the way you've been suggesting things, it seems like you have to throw out her endorsements of Waggoner. Waggoner's position seems utterly different to me than what you've been saying. She said Waggoner's position agreed with her own. It seems to me I'm being consistent, explaining things in a way which harmonizes with Scripture, Waggoner, and Ellen White. In your explanations, up to now, I'm seeing discrepancies.



The OC leads to bondage. God wouldn't give something that leads to bondage.

The OC is faulty. God wouldn't give something which is faulty.

The OC involved establishing one's own righteousness instead of accepting the righteousness of Christ. God wouldn't give something based on that principle.

Also what you're suggesting completely disagrees with Waggoner's position, a position Ellen White said was a waste of "investigative powers" to argue against.

You wrote, "Deuteronomy has many things like that. However, this isn't the Old Covenant." If the COI had not been so needy and faulty it is very likely God would not have shared such minute details with Moses, details that are "only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified". In fact, if A&E had not sinned God probably would not have increased the two great commandments to ten commandments. In the beginning it came as a surprise to the angels that there was a law.

So, yes, I agree with you that that part of the OC which involved the COI promising to obey, in their own unaided strength, everything God commanded is not to be imitated under the NC. However, everything else about the OC (i.e. everything God commanded the COI to do) still applies today in principle if not in particular. I suspect you agree with this.

Let’s consider the following insights:


1. “. . . a pledge that they would remain separate from idolatry, and would obey the law of God.” This is the original Abrahamic Covenant pledge. It involved pledging to obey the law of God.

2. “Therefore when the Lord brought them forth from Egypt, He came down upon Sinai, enshrouded in glory and surrounded by His angels, and in awful majesty spoke His law in the hearing of all the people.” God took it upon Himself to express His law in the hearing of the COI.

3. “He did not even then trust His precepts to the memory of a people who were prone to forget His requirements, but wrote them upon tables of stone.” God took it upon Himself to write His law on two tables of stone. He did so to prevent them from forgetting the details and mingling in heathen ways.

4. “But He did not stop with giving them the precepts of the Decalogue. The people had shown themselves so easily led astray that He would leave no door of temptation unguarded.” God took it upon Himself to give them further details concerning the law. He did so to prevent them from misunderstanding the law and mingling in heathen ways.

5. “Moses was commanded to write, as God should bid him, judgments and laws giving minute instruction as to what was required. These directions relating to the duty of the people to God, to one another, and to the stranger were only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified and given in a specific manner, that none need err. They were designed to guard the sacredness of the ten precepts engraved on the tables of stone.” Again, God took it upon Himself to give them minute details, details which amplified His will for them so that none need err in understanding what God wanted them to do. He gave them such minute details to guard the sacredness of the law, and to guide in their path.


1. “All this they must be taught.” God knew the COI were in no position to understand the things necessary to live in harmony with the conditions of the NC. They must be taught how. The first thing they needed to know was what God required of them. So, the first thing Jesus did was He repeated the law in thunderous tones.

2. "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." Here, as you say, Jesus is reconfirming the NC.

3. "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient." This is the same pledge Abraham made when Jesus reconfirmed the NC with him. There is nothing wrong with the words. The intent and motive is what matters. “This is the pledge that God's people are to make in these last days. Their acceptance with God depends on a faithful fulfillment of the terms of their agreement with Him. God includes in His covenant all who will obey Him. To all who will do justice and judgment, keeping their hand from doing any evil, the promise is, "Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off" (Isa. 56:5). {AG 142.3}

4. “They could not hope for the favor of God through a covenant which they had broken . . .” The incident involving the golden calf was not the first time they broke the NC. They had been breaking it all their lives. Breaking it was nothing new. But breaking it so soon after pledging to keep it made them realize how dependent they are upon God to keep it.

5. “Now they were prepared to appreciate the blessings of the new covenant.” Breaking the NC made them appreciate it, namely, it caused them to realize the truth about their sinful state and their need of God to help them obey.

6. In response to their new state of mind (i.e. knowing they are sinful and cannot obey the law without divine aid), Jesus gives to Moses minute details, “judgments and laws” and “ritual laws” and commands them to obey and observe them faithfully, telling them that their future success as a nation and as a person depends on it. Again,, these minute details are “only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified” and, as such, are not in contradiction to the NC.

In essence, the OC is the NC amplified. The faith and dependence required to live in harmony with the laws (i.e. moral and sacrificial) of the NC is the same faith and dependence required to obey and observe the additional laws and rituals required under the OC. In fact, it was impossible to obey the NC without obeying and observing the laws and rituals required under the OC.


Yes, in one sense the conditions of OC caused a kind of bondage. Having to obey and observe some of those rites and rituals was terribly inconvenient. It was a major relief not to have to observe them after Jesus died and ascended to heaven. It is very clear, though, that God commanded the COI to obey and observe all the laws and rituals He required at Sinai. He expected them to obey and observe them. Capital punishment was penalty for disobedience. He made blessing them as a nation and as a person conditional on faithfully obeying and observing them.

You wrote, “You deny that all that man can know of God was revealed by the life and character of His Son in His humanity. You've admitted you don't believe this.” Perhaps this why it seems like we are on a merry-go-round. The truth is, I do believe Jesus revealed everything we need to know about God. It’s just that I believe He did it in two ways – 1) Through His actions, and 2) Through His teachings. I seem recall you and I agreeing on this point. Is that true?


I don’t see where you addressed this part of my post.


I read through it and didn’t see where the author specifically addressed this concern. If it’s there, please post it here. Thank you.


Why did you split this sentence off from the one following it? I say the very same thing. By splitting it off it gives the impression I didn’t say it.


True, not once did Jesus resort to the “withdraw and permit” principle of allowing death and destruction to happen while He was here in the flesh. We’ve been over this before and I thought we were in agreement on this point. However, He did teach it, that it He would in future resort to it. His confirmation that Jews and Jerusalem would alike perish is an example. Also, His doctrine regarding “weeping and gnashing of teeth” speak to it.


You wrote, “So the idea is, ‘If you love and obey me, then I won't cause you to suffer or die.’” The Bible doesn’t express it in those terms. Instead, the idea is if you despise and reject the salvation wrought out for you at such great cost to God you will be punished and destroyed according to your words and works. Paul worded it this way:


Paul isn’t using force or compelling power to push people into believing something they despise and reject. He is simply stating the truth. People deserve to know the truth.


1. You wrote, “To say ‘employ’ implies one is actively doing something.” I agree. Jesus actively works to prevent it, and He must actively work to permit it (otherwise, evil angels would disregard His established limits and cause more death and destruction than He is willing to permit).

You also wrote, “She writes that they ‘caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them.’” How do you envision this playing out? I doubt that you visualize them physically forcing God to stop preventing death and destruction from wiping them out, or physically forcing Him to permit it. But how do you see it playing out? Personally, I think God decides to employ the “withdraw and permit” principle when it suits His purposes. It is clear that He doesn’t do it every time circumstances warrant it. True, whenever He does employ it, it’s not because He is being arbitrary or capricious. No way. Instead, it’s because they have filled up their cup of iniquity, they have exhausted His mercy. Ellen White put it this way:

“With unerring accuracy the Infinite One still keeps account with the nations. While His mercy is tendered, with calls to repentance, this account remains open; but when the figures reach a certain amount which God has fixed, the ministry of His wrath begins. The account is closed. Divine patience ceases. Mercy no longer pleads in their behalf. {PK 364.1}

2/3. He did. The OT records them.

4. He will. He said so many times and in many places.


Normally I would say, Anything is possible, but in this case it isn’t true. Jesus came the first time to demonstrate to us how to live in harmony with the will of God. He did not come to punish us for despising and rejecting Him. However, He has promised that the second time He comes He will punish those who despise and reject Him. Listen:

Thus they overlooked those scriptures that point to the humiliation of Christ's first advent, and misapplied those that speak of the glory of His second coming. {DA 30.2} Between the first and the second advent of Christ a wonderful contrast will be seen. {LHU 373}

The Lord had told them that He would come the second time. . . Jesus declared to the listening disciples the judgments that were to fall upon apostate Israel, and especially the retributive vengeance that would come upon them for their rejection and crucifixion of the Messiah. {GC 25}

Matthew
24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Hebrews
9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
12:14 Follow peace with all [men], and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:

Revelation
6:15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
6:17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Right! This falls right in line with EGW's explanation in "The Law and The Covenants" in PP.



This *is* the OC, as Waggoner explained:



I emphasized a couple of things. Note how well the final underlined thing ties into what EGW said about the law being written tablets in the heart as opposed to on tables of stone.



If you're saying:

1.God instructed the COI to do certain things.
2.If you strip away all the things which don't have to do with the 10 Commandments.
3.Then, of what's left, the same instructions apply to us, in principle.

Then I agree, as all that's left are the principles of the 10 Commandments, which, of course, apply to us.

Scripture tells us that circumcision was first and foremost a symbol of the righteousness which the one who believes has by virtue of his faith in Christ:



Abraham was circumcised as a sign of the righteousness he had by faith in Christ. Therefore righteousness is by faith, not by works. This is Paul's argument.

This corresponds to the point that EGW made that in the New Covenant (the covenant of which circumcision is a sign, the covenant God made with Abraham, the Everlasting Covenant, the only covenant under which one can be saved) the righteousness of Christ is accepted as opposed to one's going about to establish one's own righteousness (which is the Old Covenant).



This was only necessary because of their unbelief. If they had responded in faith when God gave them *His* covenant, the one He made with Abraham, they would have had the law written in their heart, and not needed to have it written on stone.

The same comment applies to the rest of the points. God only needed to do these things because of the unbelief of the people.

1.God offered the people the covenant He made with Abraham, which involves accepting the righteousness of Christ.

2.Instead of this, they chose to go about establishing their own righteousness, and thus the Old Covenant was born.

3.God met them where they were, in their unbelief, and gave them the law spelled out, so they could see that they did not have the righteousness the law required, and that it was impossible for them to establish their own righteousness, so they would return to His plan, which was, and always has been, the New Covenant; righteousness by faith in Christ.



This isn't talking about the NC! It's talking about the old. The broke the promise they had made to God, which is the OC. We can't break the New Covenant! Only God could break the New Covenant. He could have broken it by not doing what He said He would do. We can't break it. We can only choose to be a part of it or not.

This is one of the reasons the New Covenant is so much better than the Old. Instead of depending upon our promises to God, it depends upon His promises to us.

Take a look at what was said:



Just after this she writes:



The "going about to establish our own righteousness" is the Old Covenant, so when she says above



this is an expression of the Old Covenant.



Not at all! The OC and the NC are completely different. One is bad, and the other is good.

The OC leads to bondage (bad).
The NC leads to freedom (good).

In the OC, one goes about to establish one's own righteousness (bad).
In the NC, one accepts the righteousness of Christ (good).

In the OC, the law is no written in the heart (bad).
In the NC, the law is written in the heart (good).

The OC is founded upon the promises of people, and can be broken by them (bad).
The NC is founded upon the promises of God, and cannot be broken by people (good), but only by God (good), who never breaks His promise (very good), so the NC is sure (excellent).



MM, this has absolutely nothing to do with the bondage of the OC!



Again, nothing to do with this.



Nor does this. God did nothing to put them in bondage, which is what you're implying! Think of it. If you say that observing the things God instructed them to do is bondage, then God put them into bondage. It is sin which put them into bondage, by unbelief, because they didn't believe His promises. God, all the time, was working to get them *out* of bondage.

MM, there's simply no way to harmonize your ideas with the other ideas were concerned with, namely Paul, EGW, and Waggoner. We've spoken about EGW at some length, let's try the other two for awhile.

Explain your view using only Paul or Waggoner. We know Paul's view is correct, because it's Scripture. We know Waggoner's view is correct, because of what Ellen White said about it.

I can demonstrate what I've been saying by both Paul and Waggoner. Can you do so by either?

You just said a little earlier you didn't believe this. If you're going this way and that, I don't know what to believe.

Let's let that go. If you're saying that you believe that Jesus Christ, in His humanity, revealed all the man can know of God, then we are in agreement. You're saying you agree with this?



No.



Chapter 9. The principles needed to understand the case are discussed.



You don't say the same thing. You deny it. You believe God used force or violence on many occasions. You don't call what was done "force" or "violence," but in terms of the actual definitions of the words, this is what you believe. For example, in the plagues of Egypt, you believe God used more and more force and violence (inflicting pain and death) until finally Pharaoh capitulated.

Tell me how you would say this, and I can quote it, so I'm not using words you don't like, but God did X more and more until Pharaoh capitulated. It is this God doing X that I disagree with, regardless of how you choose to label X.



This is FOTAP. I'm not saying that God resorts to the "withdraw and permit" principle but that people cause His protection to be withdrawn.



??? Why would you think this?

I'm confused. I believe that all that can be known of God was revealed by the life and character of Jesus Christ in His humanity. It appears to me that you don't agree with this, and are using this "withdraw and permit" things as an example to disprove what I'm asserting. But you may be trying to do something else.



This is again FOTAP, I believe. It's not a principle that Christ "resorts" to, but, as the SOP puts it, what happens is people cause God's protection to be removed.

I really have no idea what overall point you're trying to make here, however.



What it's called isn't the important thing. It's what's happening that's important. You believe that what happens is that God will cause you to suffer and die if you don't do what He says. Don't you?



It doesn't appear to me you are taking into consideration what Paul believed, as expressed elsewhere (particularly Romans, chapters 1 and 12 come to mind) regarding wrath and vengeance. God's wrath is His "giving up" those who reject Him to the result of their choice. Rom. 1 makes that clear. The vengeance is spoken of in terms of giving your enemy food to eat, and, in so doing, heaping coals upon his head.



I agree. If this is what you mean by the language you used, I agree, and this is similar to other places of Scripture which speak of God actively doing things. However, I think the language the SOP used, which speaks of people causing God's protection to be removed, is clearer in terms of understanding what's actually happening.



It's pretty clear that they do so by force of will. They choose what they want, and God allows them to have their choice. This is the wrath of God.



I think the SOP language is better than the language you're using here, especially in the context of our present discussion.



MM, the problem, again, with saying that God "employs" it is that it gives the impression that this is God's will, something God is acting to accomplish, something that He wants to happen. The superior SOP language, that people cause God's protection to be removed, makes crystal clear what is happening. Why not use that language?



This is better. And GC 35, 36 makes clear how that wrath operates. People cause God's protection to be removed.



Here's 2:



Please not "while He was here in the flesh."

Was this simply an oversight on your part? Or did you think "while He was here in the flesh" was referring to the OT?



Here's 4:



We disagree on this point. I believe that Satan is the destroyer and Christ is the restorer, by which I mean, Satan causes death and destruction, not Christ. I believe that statement that Satan is the author of sin and all its results also brings this out.



I think Satan has been *far* more successful at this than we realize.



According to the SOP, the whole purpose of Christ's mission on earth was "the revelation of God." She didn't limit His mission the way you are. The "revelation of God" includes everything about Him, not just the "nicey-nice" side (as teresa put it).

The punishment for despising and rejecting Christ is a self-imposed punishment, which is what the following is getting at:

i wonder if part of the problem is connecting the law- i assume the 10c- with the old covenant.

or just not understanding Gods intention all along.

But that which God required of Adam in paradise before the fall, He requires in this age of the world from those who would follow Him,--perfect obedience to His law. But righteousness without a blemish can be obtained only through the imputed righteousness of Christ. Through the provision that God has made for the forgiveness and restoration of sinners, the same requirements may be fulfilled by men today that were given to Adam in Eden. {RH, September 3, 1901 par. 2}
It was the transgression of the law that resulted in sin, sorrow, and death. Satan declared that he would prove to the worlds which God has created, and to the heavenly intelligences, that it was an impossibility to keep the law of God. When Adam yielded to the temptation of the enemy, and fell from his high and holy estate, Satan and his angels exulted. But from the throne of God a voice was heard speaking words of mysterious import. "Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart." When man fell, Christ announced His purpose of becoming man's substitute and surety. Who was He? Isaiah says of Him, "Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." John says of Him, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. . . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth." {RH, September 3, 1901 par. 3}

There was a connection in that the Ten Commandments are what the COI promised to keep. But it was never God's intent that they should make vain promises to Him. Instead, God wanted to write the law in their heart.

yes. im thinking the title of the thread is wrong.

the covenant God intended with israel is the same one given to adam and eve through to abraham through to us. God never intended for man to try to work his way to heaven, and the title fuels the beliefs of those that believe the God expected "works" in the ot but gives "grace" in the nt.

works:
Psa 78:22 Because they believed not in God, and trusted not in his salvation:

faith:
Psa 13:5 But I have trusted in thy mercy; my heart shall rejoice in thy salvation.

but i think to many minds they are reading/hearing that the law doesnt have to be obeyed, "just believe", instead of what is really being said.

What a statement is this! How can the finite man grasp it? Man may become elevated, ennobled through obedience to the commandments of God, and become loyal and true subjects of his kingdom. We may become one with Christ in spirit and character, and testify to the world that God loves us as he loves his Son. What possibilities are there before the fallen human agent! Let perfect obedience be rendered to God through the imputed righteousness of Christ, and we shall reveal to the world the fact that God loves us as he loves Jesus. It will be made evident that "he that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" {ST, May 28, 1896 par. 4}
Why is it that we are so disposed to distrust God? Why do we as a church doubt his love? Let faith increase by exercise. Let it be sustained by works of righteousness. It is sin that darkens the reason of man, and clouds the understanding. Let the affections be given to God in order that his law may be written in the heart, and the whole man will become a new creature, born again of the Spirit. Then it will be made manifest that the law of God "is perfect, converting the soul." The Lord Jesus has revealed to us the value of the human soul. He says: "O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee; but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it; that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them." Again the promise is made, "I will make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir." Shall we co-operate with God, and possess the faith that works by love and purifies the soul?