Lesson #10 (4th Quarter 2011): The Two Covenants

Here is the link to the study and discussion material for Lesson #10 (4th Quarter 2011): The Two Covenants

Here are some study helps: Study Helps, Lesson 10

I was hoping to spend some quality time with this week's lesson, but life has a way of throwing curve balls when you least expect it. Anyway, here are some thoughts on Sarah/Isaac vs Hagar/Ishmael....

We have seen that Abraham accepted God's promise and it was imputed to him as righteousness, apart from his own works. However, it took some time for the promise to be realized. Considering that Abraham and Sarah were still childless after 10 years, it is not really surprising that they got impatient. How many of us have been able to wait 10 years for a promise to be fulfilled?

At this point, they decided to help God along. Keep in mind that they did not intend to disobey God. Rather, they were going to help God fulfill His promise. So they hatched this fleshly plan.

Isn't that exactly the fundamental problem of the Old Covenant? God promised the people that He would make them a holy nation, and the people promised God that they would help Him. "All that You have said, we will do." Such presumption!

It is obviously sin when we choose to contradict God's will. But is it less of a sin to use the flesh in order to fulfill God's will? It may be more of a sin, considering that it is, at its root, a form of Satan's fall - I will be like the Most High. Plus, it is surely more insidious, since the sinner is trying to do God's will.

The law is beyond the sinner's ability to fulfill. It is only by accepting God's righteousness that we can have the necessary righteousness to meet the law's demands. We are saved by accepting God's gifts, not by replicating His righteousness. We must accept that we fall short, that we cannot do otherwise, and receive His promise of grace to fill our need.

Abraham and Sarah knew that it was beyond their ability to have children. But instead of allowing God to lay man's glory in the dust in His own way and in His own time, they chose a carnal method of "glorifying" God. They used their own resources to try to accomplish what can only be done by God's grace.

In contrast, when Isaac was finally conceived, it was obviously by God's special intervention. Though Abraham and Sarah had a part to play, it is clear that their part was insufficient for the task; God receives all the credit.

The same is true in salvation. Both the Old Covenant and New Covenant are founded on God's holy law. But the OC relied on man's ability to become holy. The NC relies solely on man's willingness to receive God's holiness. And if we try to mix our own human efforts to obey as a means of salvation, we contaminate God's plan. We would be as guilty as Moses when he hit the Rock.

Sadly, that's all the time I have for now.

Let's continue with the parable at hand. We have Isaac as God's promised gift. Were Abraham and Sarah supposed to do something before they were ready for the gift? Yes. They were to wait (25 years, it turns out). They were to trust. They were to refrain from carnal ways to fulfill God's promise. And on the more active side, Abraham had to perform the sacrifices to seal the covenant. Lastly, without getting into too much detail, Isaac was not a virgin birth. So yes, there was much to do.

Was there anything to do after the promised gift had been given? Yes. They were to "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman." (Galatians 4:30) That means our fleshly plans and the fruits of such fleshly labors are to be cast away. Circumcision, I'm sure, was a clear reminder that our fleshly endeavors have no part in God's work. God's promises are not to be mingled with our profane works.

They were to take care of Isaac. That means everything that would hinder his growth and proper development were not to be tolerated. As much as Abraham loved Ishmael, he had to make a choice. The choice was clear, though extremely difficult. So also, if we are to cultivate our spiritual growth, we must abstain from everything that wars against the soul.

Faith in God must be maintained as the foundation of our Christian experience. After Ishmael was gone, and Isaac was left as Abraham's "only" son, God commanded Abraham to sacrifice the promised heir. Abraham's fleshly attempt to fulfill God's promise had been removed, and God commands Abraham: "Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you." (Genesis 22:2) Has Abraham now learned that God is able to fulfill His promises in spite of everything our human eyes can see and our human reason can understand? Or will he revert to trusting in his human ability to save the day? We know that Abraham, the father of faith, had learned that faith in God, no matter what, is the foundation of our relationship with Him.

Yes, there is a lot to do both before and after conversion. But on both sides of the fence, the key is to walk in the Spirit, not in the flesh. We need to understand that while invoking the Spirit's name in the act disobeying God does not constitute walking in the Spirit, using the arm of flesh as a means to meet God's standard of perfection does constitute walking in the flesh.

Both are required - faith and good works. We are saved unto good works. "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." "That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." Ellen observed:


Again, both faith and good works are the conditions of salvation.


I disagree. Ellen wrote:


Both the OC and the NC are based on righteousness by faith. The main difference has to do with the sacrificial services. Under the NC we are no longer required to sacrifice animals. Also, now that Israel failed to remain God's chosen nation, certain rules and regulations no longer apply to the Church.

We are not saved BY good works. Clearly, we are saved FOR good works, but not BY good works. "Not of works, lest anyone should boast."

The difference is huge. It is the difference between the OC and the NC. But it looks like we disagree there also. I'll post more later.

The difference was much more fundamental than that.

The OC was founded on righteousness by works. "Obey and live" was the requirement. Here's how the Israelites saw the plan of salvation:

What about your quote? I will address that next time.

Let's look at your quote from the original sources. It turns out that it is actually snips from two different articles in two different periodicals. The first article is "Hold Fast the Faith" from The Southern Watchman. The second article is "Our Work" from The Review and Herald.

Just from the titles, we can gather that they focus on different things. But somehow, they both refer to the covenant made at Sinai.


What is "this covenant" that is "of just as much force today"? Who made this covenant? The text clearly says that God made this covenant. It is the covenant, in summary, to make His people a holy nation.

Why did she bring this up? Here's what she wrote just before this:


She was talking about how we are to conquer, how we are to obtain power. And how do we do that? By accepting His promise to make us a holy nation.

How was Israel's salvation effected? Was it because they were such a strong nation, a powerful people? No. It was because God saved them, in spite of themselves. "Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself."

That covenant is in full effect today. The weakest of the weak can overcome if he allows God to save him. Today, as it was then, we can be freed from sin, not by our valiant efforts, but only as God frees us. This is how we are saved.



Here, we find a different aspect of truth. There is work for us to do. Yes, we are to obey.

However, we do not obey in order for God to save us. We cannot obey unless God saves us first.

Our obedience, our pledge to do all He has spoken, is a loving response to what He has already done for us. Our obedience is not what makes the New Covenant effective. Rather, it is the New Covenant being effective that makes our obedience possible.

Further, our obedience is our "part" of the bargain if we are to continue in the NC. This is where it could get confusing. Obedience is part of the NC, but not the means to effect the NC. It is the result of partaking of the NC.

In contrast, the OC required obedience in order to be saved. First you obey, then you live.

The NC, founded on better promises, is that you accept the life God is offering, then you obey.

Arnold, we agree the result of faith is obedience and righteousness. It is inconceivable He would require of the Jews a covenant impossible to keep. "God is true. He changes not. The conditions of salvation are ever the same. Life, eternal life, is for all who will obey God's law. {AG 136} "Under the new covenant, the conditions by which eternal life may be gained are the same as under the old. The conditions are, and ever have been, based on perfect obedience. {8MR 31.1}

He didn't require it of them. The NC has been available since Adam.

However, the Israelites, after being in bondage for 4 centuries, had lost sight of God's holiness and what it means to be His child. The had forgotten how high His standards are. The OC's purpose was make them realize the impossibility of earning God's favor by their obedience.


Yes, perfect obedience has always been required. The big difference is that in the OC, that obedience was to be rendered by the sinner - an impossibility. In the NC, that obedience has been rendered fully by Jesus; all the sinner needs to do is to receive it by faith.

I think our disagreement stems from your belief that your obedience can be improved to the point that it can be accepted by God as-is. I believe that even our best obedience must be cleansed by Christ's blood and His righteousness imputed to us.

Fellas, there are TWO meanings to OC,...remember?

I'll get to the NC just now.

The temporal OC was the sacrificial system, lasting from Adam till Golgatha, the promise of the everlasting covenant fulfilled, and this OC is true Gospel, of course: truly OT & NT. The other OC is the opposite of the NC, excluding as it does the new birth of justification by faith, thus foisting on the flesh the task of perfect obedience - which is a lost cause and utterly frustrating: Hence, Jn 3:3.

Again, there are two types of OC: sacrifices ordained by God to reconcile man to God - pointing to the sacrifice of the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world; the other OC is the will of man instead of submitting to the will of God by the new birth.

Obedience is the unambiguous will of God for us, so the experience of the NC: based on the new birth of true justification by faith, this obedience of faith is obvious to relate as the life of justification. But..., obvious only for justifition which is the experience of the new birth.

The so-called "new" covenant is just a renewed "old" covenant in a sense. In fact, the "new covenant" pre-existed the "old covenant," and trumps it, if we want to be technical (which we usually do).

The new covenant existed before Adam and Eve were created. It involves perfect obedience to God's law, just as the old covenant does. The difference I see between the two is primarily the source of our obedience. Are we doing good works in order TO BE good, or are we doing them because we ARE good. Put another way, is our motivation for doing the good works extrinsic or intrinsic.

God says He will write His laws upon our hearts, not just on our door posts. That's the difference between the old and the new. Where is the law written?

The law is exactly the same in both covenants. The new covenant does nothing to change God's requirement of our obedience. He explicitly stated that He did not come to destroy the law...and that heaven and earth would pass away before so much as a jot or tittle of it should fade.

One of the keys to understanding the "new covenant" is to understand the usage of the word "new" in the Greek. The word is "kainos." Look it up and compare to other passages in the NT where it is used.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

A covenant is an agreement between two people or two parties. The OC was an agreement between God and the Jews. God laid out the law of life and living and the Jews agreed to live in harmony with it. "'All that the Lord hath spoken we will do.' This is the pledge that God's people are to make in these last days. Their acceptance with God depends on a faithful fulfilment of the terms of their agreement with him."

I hear you two saying, no, the OC was flawed because it required (expected, depended on) the Jews to render obedience without God's supernatural aid. I disagree. True, the Jews, like so many today, attempted to obey without God's help; however, it is not proof the OC was flawed, not any more than it is proof the NC is flawed because people nowadays attempt the same thing.

Why would God agree to a covenant you two believe was flawed and impossible to keep? Who established the terms and conditions of the OC? Was it not God Himself? I find it difficult to believe God established a covenant no one could keep. To what purpose? What if the Jews had refused it? What if they had insisted on the Abrahamic Covenant instead? Did they have a choice? Was Moses as ignorant as the Jews?


You wrote, "Yes, perfect obedience has always been required." Ellen wrote, "Everyone who by faith obeys God's commandments will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression." Here's why and how: "It is the privilege of every believer in Christ to possess Christ's nature, a nature far above that which Adam forfeited by transgression. He who sees the Son by faith and believes in Him, is obedient to the commandments of God, and in this obedience he finds everlasting life." The idea that this kind of obedience and righteousness is somehow sinful and requires the covering, atoning blood of Jesus to ascend acceptable to the Father calls into question several pillars of faith.

I disagree. There is only one OC - the second one that you describe. The covenant made with sinful Adam, requiring sacrifices, was the New Covenant.

If Adam ever participated in the OC, it was before his fall. At that time, he could "obey and live." But after sin entered, the only way for man to live was by the NC, which I think is summarized well this way: If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

That's a very good way of putting it.

OC: You obey the law written on stone in order to be given life.
NC: You are given life in order to live out the law written on your heart.

While there are some similarities, the NC is fundamentally different from the OC. Yes, the same law is the foundation of both, but the provision for keeping that law cannot be more different.

The OC was demonstrated by Cain. He gave the best fruits of his labors, by them expecting to be brought into favor with God. The Israelites thought to do the same. But that is impossible.

The only way to be brought into God's favor is by the sacrifice of Jesus, demonstrated by Abel. Our obedience, our sacrifice, our anything and everything is insufficient. Only Jesus supplies the necessary grace.

But when we receive that grace, and only by receiving that grace, we are enabled to "live in obedience to the law of God written upon our hearts."


God laid out His law, which has always been the same. But the people made a foolish promise. It was a bad promise. Hence, the need for "better promises."


Here's the inspired answer:



Then God would have been quite pleased.

Moses was not ignorant. In fact, he played his part as the symbol of Christ by offering his life for the people.

Arnold, thank you for sharing your point of view. You seem convinced God created a flawed covenant in order to teach the Jews they are incapable of rendering obedience without His supernatural aid. Just exactly how did the terms and conditions of the OC teach them? And, how do the terms and conditions of the NC differ from the OC? Did God cancel the OC after the Jews sinned and repented? Ellen wrote:


Did Abraham fare any better? It wasn't long before he broke his covenant with God. And, what about us? We break our covenant with God several times a day. Does have to create another covenant every time we sin?

MM, I think you are missing a crucial difference between the OC and the NC. The OC was "obey and live." Once you fail to obey, you die. Period.

The NC was designed for those who have failed to obey. These sinners are offered redemption.

Failure to comply with the OC meant sure and eternal death. Failure to comply with the NC meant the sinner needed to confess, repent, and try again. The OC offers no hope to the sinner, while the NC is the only hope for the sinner.

Failure to obey has been a constant of human history, so there's no surprise that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. You will not have any difficulty finding examples of failure to keep either covenant. But you cannot find a single example of a sinner who was able to pull himself up by the bootstraps and comply with the Old Covenant.

The surprise to me is that people are still trying to live by a covenant that was proven to be a complete and utter failure 6000 years ago.

Please don't quote that verse from the NIV, Arnold! It perverts the truth.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

1. Disobey and die = OC.
2. Disobey and live = NC.

Are you sure?

What verse? There's only one verse that I prefer in the NIV over the NKJV, and I haven't quoted it here for a very long time.

It was Rom. 3:23. Perhaps you've heard it from the NIV so often that you didn't realize you were quoting the NIV and not the KJV.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I'm sure that's not it.

1. Disobey and die immediately and forever = OC.
2. Disobey and live for a time of probation = NC.

This should be basic Adventism. Are you disagreeing with this?


Not only does this summarize the NC, but it reminds us how preposterous it is to even consider that we can earn brownie points with God by simply returning to Him what He gave us in the first place, but with the unsavory addition of our corruption.

Arnold,

In some situations, verb tense is everything. This is one of those. We've got to keep a close eye on those tenses, or the covenants will be misrepresented and misunderstood.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

No, that was from the NKJV, which I have read and heard many times. It's a coincidence that the NIV uses similar words.

In any case, I don't know that there's a problem between come and fall. Perhaps we can discuss this in Why the King James Version is Superior....

Certainly we want to avoid misunderstandings, especially in such an important topic. Please elaborate.

Arnold,

Your new covenant theology seems a little edgy to me with its handling of the sin/confession/repentance cycle. You've made some good points. However, quoting one of the newer translations which says we must continue to fall implies that we can never truly be free of sin. I do not accept such a translation, nor philosophy. I believe it contradicts the messages we find elsewhere in the Bible and in Ellen White's writings.

Keep the sinning as past tense. There is no need for us to remain slaves to sin. We can be free!

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC,

The KJV also renders Rom 3:23 in the present tense. It does not say that all sinned and used to come short of the glory of God. I have never seen that verse translated in the past tense.

The NC requires faith in Christ's atoning blood at the start, end, and every moment in between. There is never a point where we say, "Thanks, Jesus, but I can handle it from here on out. I don't need your covering anymore."

Plus, the NC is not a sin/confession/repentance cycle. Yes, there is sin/confession/repentance, but repentance always comes with reformation. However, we are to maintain a spirit of repentance, contrition, etc. Even our best works need Christ's blood to make them acceptable to God.

We don't continue to fall, but we continue to be fallen sinners. If we die with Christ, we are freed from sin, not free of sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Arnold,

The English translation that appears in the KJV can be interpreted one of two ways:

1) compound past tense verb, i.e. (have sinned and have come short)
2) separate past tense and present tense verbs: (have sinned, past) and (come short, present)

However, what exactly does "come short" mean? Does it mean "sin?" I submit that this is not necessarily the case. After all, will we ever equal God's glory? We never will. Yet we will be sinless. Even the angels may come short of the Glory of God.

In other words, neither of the two possible interpretations of the KJV wording forces a present tense sin or sinning.

Now, look at the NIV/NKJV wording. Only one word has changed. But it makes all the difference in the world.

The "have sinned" still is in past tense, and "fall" is now decisively in the present tense, not being a possible part of a compound verb. However, "fall" implies a clear direction of travel from a higher state to a lower one, ergo "sin."

So it is essentially stating that one must continue to sin, present tense, with no hope of changing this side of translation to Heaven. This also means that Jesus gave an impossible command in "be ye therefore perfect."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Again, the verb tense difference between "fall" and "fallen" makes all the difference, doesn't it?

Regarding being "freed from sin, not free of sin," I say that is an oxymoron. If God is not powerful enough to help us stop sinning, there is no hope for us. If Jesus has to simply do it for us because we cannot possibly be led or aided by Him to do right ourselves, why am I still a Christian? Honestly, Arnold, if I believed what you imply here, I would have given up long ago. I refuse to believe God is so impotent as to be unable to help me be free of every taint of sin, not just escape sin's consequences through the vicarious perfection of Christ.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Just 2 quickies for now:

1. Does the Textus Receptus give the option of a compound past perfect tense in Rom 3:23?

2. God's glory is His character, yes? Is it OK to come short of His character? Or are we called to have a character like His?

That made me laugh out loud.

I contrast it with my father who says that if he believed as I do, he would have given up being a Christian long ago because he can't believe in a God who is so impotent that He needs help from sinners to get the job done.

He will free you and me from every taint of sin. But it might not be according to our schedule. From the cross to the crown there is earnest work to be done, there is wrestling against inbred sin and outward wrong.

I don't have an answer to your #1, as I'm not a scholar in the Biblical languages.

Regarding number two, I believe God's character is a major part of His glory, but that there's more to it than just that. The Bible speaks of there being no need for the light of the sun in the New Earth because God's glory will be its light. I don't imagine us ever having a light that shines as brilliantly as God's will, do you?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

1. Aaron disobeyed under the OC and he lived. Please explain.
2. When did the Jews switch from the OC to the NC?


As of the time of Jeremiah Jesus still hadn't entered into NC status with the Jews.

When will Jesus set us free? What is He waiting for? What does inbred sin have to with it? In what way is the NC "better" if, as you say, Jesus cannot set us free now? Ellen wrote:


There is no evidence in these passages that Jesus waits to set us free. How can people whom Jesus has renewed with a new nature, a new heart, a new mind, new motives, new tastes, and new tendencies yield the sinful, sin-stained obedience and righteousness you speak of?

Sorry, I know the question was addressed to Arnold, but I couldn't resist it.

He was forgiven under the abrahamic (new) covenant. There was no promise of forgiveness under the terms of the old covenant.

In the old dispensation believers were saved through the grace of Christ, as presented in the gospel, as we are saved today. The only means of salvation is provided under the Abrahamic covenant. {ST, September 5, 1892 par. 4}


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 371.4}

Was Aaron ever under the terms and conditions of the OC?

Also, if being under the OC is negative, why, then, did Ellen speak of it in positive terms? "The covenant that God made with His people at Sinai is to be our refuge and defense. . . This covenant is of just as much force today as it was when the Lord made it with ancient Israel. . . 'All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.' This is the pledge that God's people are to make in these last days."


Was appreciating the "blessings of the new covenant" the same thing as switching from the OC to the NC? If so, why did Jeremiah speak of it happening in future?

The OC was only a teaching tool to lead to the NC. To be under the terms of the OC was death; the OC was "the ministration of death" (2 Cor. 3:7).


The question is, Was there only one covenant at Sinai? Read Ex 19:3-8 and Ex 24:2-8.


Yes, it was the same as switching from the OC to the NC. The NC would be ratified in the future, by Christ's blood, but it existed since the fall (Gn 3:15), and it was renewed with Abraham (Gn 12:3). It is the Abrahamic covenant - the covenant of grace by faith. "And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Gl 3:29).

If he was never under the OC how, then, did he break it? ". . . only a few weeks passed before they broke their covenant with God, and bowed down to worship a graven image." If breaking the OC resulted in immediate death why, then, didn't he die?


Ellen applied the two passages you cited above to the OC. She wrote:


Where in the Bible does God switch from the OC to the NC, that is, where does it say He entered into NC relations with post-exilic Israel?


Why did Jeremiah speak of the NC happening in future?

I know that these are addressed to Rosangela, but I have time for a quickie. (Plus, we're usually on the same page anyway, especially on this topic, so I think it will be OK. )


If the OC were to be fully implemented, then Adam and Eve would have perished immediately. But in His mercy, God has given all of us another chance, even from the foundation of the world. See Revelation 13:8. Whether or not we know it, we have received at least some of the blessings of the NC. A substitute was found, giving us another probation.

But some sinners do not have a true concept of God's requirements, and their utter inability to fulfill them. So they still try to enter into the OC, thinking their good works will earn them something other than death. But God, like a good parent, often gives us what we need, not what we want.

The old covenant was made with the israelites - all of them. But it couldn't provide salvation - there was no Savior promised in it. When the OC led someone to realize that he had sinned and was under a curse, was lost, that person had to go back to the Savior promised in the abrahamic covenant. The two covenants ran side by side.


No, I don't believe she did it. The Bible is clear that there were two covenants, and EGW is clear that one of them is still in force. Surely you don't believe that the OC is still in force, do you?


?
The NC predates the OC. The NC has always been in force since the entrance of sin, and there is salvation only under the NC. Everybody who felt the need of a Savior and accepted Him by faith was under the NC.


Jeremiah is speaking about the days of the Messiah, when God's people would understand as never before the terms of the NC and would come under it.

Of course it's OK! It just depends who finds time first to write a reply. It seems both of us are having time constrictions.

Are you suggesting A&E broke the OC when they ate the forbidden fruit?

Are you suggesting God still enters into OC terms and conditions with sinners nowadays?

When are born-again believers guilty of sinning under the OC and when are they guilty of sinning under the NC? Please provide examples and explain how they differ. Thank you.

Rosangela, are you suggesting God made two opposing, contradicting agreements with post-exilic Israel at Sinai?

Rosangela, are you suggesting the covenant named four different times in the paragraph above refers to two different and opposing covenants?

Is it possible the OC was made with the nation of Israel corporately, whereas the NC is made with people personally? If so, it stands to reason both were in effect during the reign of Israel as God's chosen nation.

Mike, there is no two "opposing" covenants. The terms of God's covenants are always the same:
obey -> live
disobey -> die
IOW, eternal life is gained through perfect obedience.
These were the terms of God's covenant before sin.
The problem with this covenant is that for sinners it means death.
The difference between the covenant made before sin and the covenant made after sin is that the covenant made after sin provided a Savior - a Savior who both obeyed and earned eternal life (for us), and who died for (our) disobedience.
This covenant, the covenant of grace, has always been in force after sin. Listen to what the Bible says:

Galatians 3:17 And this I say, that the law (the OC), which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect.

God made a covenant with the israelites, but He didn't include in it the promise of a Savior. Why? Because He wished them to feel the need of a Savior:

Galatians 3:24 Therefore the law (the OC) was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Anyone who felt his need of a Savior and accepted Him by faith was automatically under the NC.

No, I don't think Ex 19 refers to the NC and Ex 24 refers to the OC. I think in Ex 19 the people accepted the Lord as their Ruler and agreed to become His people. In Ex 24, after the covenant (OC) was presented, and they became aware of how much it involved, they agreed to enter into covenant with Him. So I see Ex 19 more as a pre-covenant agreement.

Hasn't the NC always been made with people personally?

Rosangela, thank you. Did anyone die because they violated the terms and conditions of the OC? Or, was the OC annulled after the Jews worshiped the golden calf? And, was the OC a corporate contract (as opposed to a personal one)? Does the OC still exist today?

Difficult questions.


Those who violated the terms and conditions of the OC (which were none other than loving God supremely and loving one's neighbor as oneself) were condemned to death. But this does not mean they would die immediately. Eternal death will happen after the millennium.


I don't think so. The fact that God rewrote the tables of stone implies that the covenant wasn't annulled.


Yes, Ex 24 implies that.


The OC - Sinaitic Covenant - was made with Israel, specifically to be a teaching tool to them, and ceased to exist when Christ died on the cross.

Hebrews 8:13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

How about this: All who will not receive eternal life will eternally die under the OC.

The NC is God writing His law in sinners, converting them into saints. The OC is disobey and die, which all who do not partake of the NC will experience.

WDYT?

Besides the ones Moses slew for worshiping the golden calf has anyone else died under the terms and conditions of the OC? For example, the men stoned to death for Sabbath-breaking and blasphemy, were they executed under the terms and conditions of the OC? And then, during final judgment, will they die eternally under the terms and conditions of the NC? Or, does the NC even have a death penalty?


It seems reasonable to view the OC as an agreement between God and the Jews to serve as His chosen nation to proclaim the Gospel to the world. The OC, therefore, served as the basis of their corporate chosen nation status. The NC, however, applies to everyone everywhere and has always served as the basis of personal salvation since the Fall of A&E. Does the NC serve as the basis of the corporate chosen church status? Or, does a different covenant serve this purpose?

Wasn't the OC an agreement between God and the Jewish nation and ended when Jesus died on the cross?

Is it possible to sin and die eternally under the NC? What about all the people who sinned and died before God penned the OC and entered into OC relations with the Jews?

No. I see the OC as the covenant God made with sinless Adam. Obey and live, disobey and die. There were only two options, and Adam chose the second.

The NC was made with Adam after he sinned, because he had no need of it until then. God gave them a glimpse of it by covering sinful man with the covering provided through the death of an animal.


I don't believe that one can partake of the NC and die eternally. Here's why:

One who is living by the NC is in harmony with the divine will. There is no condemnation for such.

Arnold, please quote from the Bible or the SOP where it says the OC existed in Eden. I agree with you that A&E possessed the ability within themselves to live in perfect harmony with the law of God and that they lost this ability when they sinned. I also happen to believe the one and only prohibition in Eden promised a sudden and immediate second death experience should they sin. It did not hold out hope. The plan of salvation was made known and available to them after they sinned. Of course, God knew about it beforehand.

PS - Arnold, do you think people are capable of sinning under the terms and conditions of the NC?

That's a pretty good description of the OC. Obey and live, disobey and die. It wasn't called the OC, but that's what they had in Eden.

But if you want some inspiration....

It was possible for Adam, before the fall, to form a righteous character by obedience to God's law. But he failed to do this, and because of his sin our natures are fallen and we cannot make ourselves righteous. {SC 62.2}

The penalty of transgression is always death. Christ averted the immediate execution of the death sentence by giving His life for man. {HP 153.3}

Not while partaking of the NC. The NC is to bring us back from sin, not allow us to continue in it.

Arnold, it has been interesting learning what you believe about the OC and NC. When Jesus writes the law in the hearts and minds of newborn believers they cease sinning and commence "perfecting holiness", namely, "righteousness and true holiness". See 2 Cor 7:1 and Ephesians 4:24. You describe the righteous and holy results of abiding in Jesus and partaking of the divine nature under the terms and conditions of the NC as sinful and selfish. At what point do you believe Christians begin experiencing the NC promises in Jer 31 and Eze 36?


Do you believe these passages promise selfish and sin-stained "righteousness and true holiness"? Or, do you think they promise sinless holiness and righteousness?

My view is slightly different. The pre-fall covenant is in force for all who do not adhere to the NC. The OC was made with the people of Israel as a teaching tool, but its terms were similar to those of the pre-fall covenant.

Arnold certainly will reply, but I would like to say that although at the new birth the law is written in our minds and hearts, it is also true that "in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells" (Rom. 7:18). As I said, if you fill with juice a bottle where some drops of poison had been put, can you separate the poison from the juice? Is some particle of the juice not contaminated with the poison? The juice was pure in its origin, but it's no longer pure after it has been put in the bottle.

When do you think the NC promise becomes a reality, that is, when will born-again believers cease sinning?

Also, are you saying the righteous results of abiding in Jesus and partaking of the divine nature are sinful and selfish?

On the first question, there, my answer would be: only the Father himself knows, but it is promised. The moment we are pardoned is the moment we are born again, though, experiencing peace with God in justification by faith: turning to sinning again is not abiding in Jesus by faith, so the righteous experience by faith is interrupted, but grace remains.

The sinful, selfish option is our carnal mind - used to sinning, and shows up again soon as we turn from Jesus' righteousness back to sinning. Sinful and righteous mindsets are available simultaneously, with faith being the method and experience of switching from sin to righteous minds & living.

The first covenant is found in Gen 2 - and is of the form "obey and live". And it worked for Adam and Eve as long as they chose to obey. All who are lost today - are still under that Old Covenant.


The New Covenant of the OT (Jer 31:31-33) begins to cover mankind in Genesis 3 and in 1Cor 10 Paul says that all saints in the OT were "baptized into Christ" and that the Rock of the OT "was Christ". All who were saved in the OT were under the New Covenant -- and this is what Paul calls in Gal 1:6-9 "The ONE Gospel" for all ages.

in Christ,

Bob

No, abiding in Jesus gives us righteousness and holiness. However, our sinfulness and selfishness continue to be sinful and selfish.


When we receive them as a gift from Jesus. While we continue to view them as "trophies" to be earned by us copying Jesus, we will never experience them, no matter how "good" we might be.


Yes, they promise holiness and righteousness. But these promises are fulfilled as we receive Christ's holiness and righteousness, NOT as we replicate them. Our best attempts to copy Christ fall short of God's standard until our selfishness is removed.

Arnold, do you believe the NC promises include born-again believers actually experiencing "righteousness and true holiness" without the stain of sin and selfishness? Or, does the NC promise only the imputed righteousness of Jesus?

Colin and Bob, thank you. What is your answer to the question posed above and below?

The NC does not promise immediate removal of our selfishness. It promises perfection IN Jesus, not IDENTICAL to Jesus. Our righteousness is imputed, not emulated.

You believe that Jesus had selfishness. Do you believe that believers are less selfish than Jesus?

Yes, I believe Jesus' sinful flesh selfishly clamored for unholy expression, that is, it tempted Him from within to satisfy His innocent and legitimate needs in sinful, selfish ways. But, praise the Lord, Jesus never once indulged the ungodly desires of His sinful, selfish flesh. Born-again believers, who are abiding in Jesus, likewise rein in their sinful, selfish flesh so that they do not and cannot sin. In the place of sinning, they grow daily in grace and mature more and more in the fruits of the Spirit. They "advance from one stage of perfection to the next". If this isn't what the NC promises, what does it promise?

So, you're saying that by abiding in selfish Jesus, believers remain selfish. The difference is that they just become much better at gritting their teeth and preventing their bodies from fulfilling their evil, selfish desires. Is this what you had in mind when you describe the "holiness and righteousness" that believers experience? Is this holy and righteous? Is this how you expect us to fulfill "all that God has said"?

Oh, what's Jesus' and what's ours.

He makes us righteous with his own merits, renewing our hearts in the daily experience of justification by faith. He also imparts his character traits to us: they are his to give, and they become ours when we accept and use them by a living faith of obedience.

That JBF is renewal of our hearts is actually stated in this last week's lesson of this quarter, under the "new creation" of 2 Cor 5:17. That is the actual, genuine Adventist message of salvation from the Bible, though it is almost never uttered in print, let alone preached: there is an experiential element to justification, y'know.

As for selfishness and sinfulness, what do they matter, for Jesus or us, as and when we let God's Spirit in and follow Jesus as Jesus followed his Father. Gal 5:17 is very, very true, as we abide in Jesus. For other times, we have 1 Jn 1:9, should we respond to the Holy Spirit. The faith of Jesus is our motto.

A curious response. Didn't see that coming. Nevertheless, no, we do not abide in Jesus' sinful flesh. Instead, praise the Lord, we abide in Jesus and partake of His divine nature, which is what enables and empowers us to grow in grace and mature in the fruits of the Spirit. The results of abiding in Jesus and partaking of the divine nature is "righteousness and true holiness" without the stain of sin or selfishness. Possessing sinful flesh does not, in and of itself, cause corruption or contamination. We must indulge its sinful desires to incur guilt and contamination. Remember, Jesus gives us a new nature when we undergo the miracle of rebirth, a nature even better than the one Adam and Eve forfeited in Eden. He also gave us new tastes, new motives, new tendencies, new desires with which we are able to cooperate with the agencies of heaven to reproduce the lovely character traits of Jesus.

Jesus didn't have "sinful flesh!" He was pure and holy from the moment of His birth. He never once sinned. Was His flesh degenerated from the original form that Adam and Eve had? Certainly. But it was still without sin. Did it perhaps cause Him some aches and pains such as we find normal in our existence? Yes. But this is not "sinful," rather "sin-caused." Had it been "sinful," we could not say He was perfect. His was the "perfect" sacrifice, that of the "spotless" and "unblemished" lamb.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Of course, Mike believes that blemished lambs were "evil" and "cursed," so if Mike truly believed that Jesus had any blemish or sinful flesh, Mike would also be tending toward the belief that Jesus was evil.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It matters in that one who is selfish and sinful has no holiness and righteousness to impute to others.

That's because you don't see the fundamental difference in our beliefs. Maybe we're getting closer to it now.


You are saying that Jesus had selfish, sinful flesh, but He had no "stain of sin or selfishness." Hence, you believe that true converts can have selfishness and yet be holy and righteous.

I believe that selfishness, in any form, is unholy and unrighteous. That's our fundamental difference.


Here it is again. You believe that one can be selfish on the inside, but can be sinless as long as he can keep it from coming out.

I believe that selfishness, whether inside or outside, is sinful.

The difference between us is NOT whether or not the true convert chooses to commit acts of sin. We both agree that they do not, cannot do that.

Neither is the difference over the presence or lack of selfishness in the true believer. We both agree that true believers have inner selfishness.

The difference is that I believe that inner selfishness is sin that must be cleansed by Christ's blood. You believe that inner selfishness is acceptable to God.

Does that make things clearer?

I agree with your logic, but I'll let MM confirm or deny what he believes.

While I'll certainly let Mike speak for himself, I concur in advance with his position
"He...took" means he is the incarnate Son of God, taking as his own a nature that isn't naturally his: thus, he didn't "have" sinful flesh, but he took it to become a man. He took on to his divine nature our sinful nature. He submitted, also, to his Father's Spirit each day: having taken sinfulness he needed daily to turn to God from that sinfulness.

The difference means while he became just like us with sinfully immoral human flesh, he didn't also accept its sinfulness by sinning. This was, primarily, to qualify as Saviour of the world, the blameless Lamb of God; being our Example is relevant only after becoming our Saviour on the tree.

This view of Christ's humanity may be a minority view, today, in the Adventist church (see "Touched with Our Feelings" at your ABC), and in Christiandom - for some non-Adventist theologians do agree with this view, but before 1949 it was the view of our church altogether. That year was the first official publication we put out, Bible Readings for the Home Circle, rev., drawing back from this teaching.

No, Jesus did not accede to the sinfulness of the human flesh he had taken to become a man: that's what righteous by faith, the faith of Jesus, means in moral terms.

Here is what Mike said in another thread as we discussed the issue of the blemished lambs:



As he believes the lamb with a blemish was "evil," and this would have resulted in "sin" for it to be offered, it stands to reason that if Jesus were in any way blemished, that He would also be "evil" and it would have been sin for Him to be offered in sacrifice for us.

I'm curious how Mike will explain this apparent dichotomy.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Thank you for clarifying your view. I actually caught on sometime last year. You and Rosangela seem to believe the same way. And it looks as though GC believes the same way, too.

I believe people incur guilt and condemnation when they sin, when they act out the unholy desires of their sinful flesh nature. God does not count them guilty and condemned if they do not act out the unholy desires of their sinful flesh nature.

I agree God views the unholy clamorings of sinful flesh nature as sinful. However, I disagree He counts people guilty of sinning because their sinful flesh nature tempts them to indulge its unholy desires. Being tempted by sinful flesh nature is no different than being tempted by evil angels so far as being tempted is concerned, that is, it is not a sin to be tempted. Nor does being tempted cause corruption or contamination.

Blemished offerings were not inherently evil or cursed. But in the context of the temple services they were considered evil and cursed. Jesus did not incur evil and cursed status when He took upon Himself sinful flesh nature. Neither are born-again believers considered evil and cursed because they retain sinful flesh nature. It is not a sin to have sinful flesh nature. Yes, sinful flesh nature is sinful. In this context, however, sinful and sinning are two different realities. Sinful flesh nature cannot sin. It can only tempt us to sin. If we do not act out its unholy desires we do not incur guilt or condemnation.

Wow, your theology is sure different than I've ever heard. It sounds to me like you are saying that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was evil and cursed because He was a blemished lamb, having sinful flesh. Is that what you are saying?

I always understood that Jesus became a curse for us because of the text in Deuteronomy which says:


I've also understood that Jesus became a curse for us becuase He took our sins upon Himself. Our blood was upon Him, just as the blood was placed upon the head of the lamb. The blood didn't make the lamb blemished, but I supposed it could have made the lamb cursed.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Careful, now: let's not get lost in the detail.

Jesus was made a curse for us, and not just because he was hanged on a tree: God the Father imputed that curse and imposed between them the barrier of divine wrath against sin. (Whether this separation of Father and Son in judgement of sin for us is possible under the trinity doctrine, that Jesus could die as man only but not as God, is being discussed on the trinity thread, now. )

Really, there are several layers of detail about righteousness and sin in the incarnation and substitution of Jesus for us.

Jesus taking our sinful nature doesn't make him corrupt, since "not for a moment did corruption rest on him". The rule is not: we sin because we're sinners; we're sinners because we sin.

The rule is, correctly: we sin because we're sinful; we're sinners because we sin. Therefore, we have freedom of choice, by the grace and power of God, to choose righteousness at any and every moment, since we are by nature sinful and not sinners.

Jesus brought no personal condemnation on himself by his behaviour: sinful flesh is in itself condemned, but by itself, as MM says, it cannot condemn us - we do that all by ourselves. Thus, both we need a Saviour and Jesus qualified to be Saviour of the world by refusing the sinfulness of his adopted, sinful humanity, producing the character of the blameless Lamb of God.

Any clearer, now?

Jesus was not blemished. Taking sinful flesh nature upon His divine nature did not cause corruption or contamination. He bore the sins of the world in His sinful flesh nature. He did not bare it in His divine nature.

This is where we may divide.

Jesus had sin-degenerated flesh. Jesus had flesh. He took upon himself our flesh, including its aches, pains and weaknesses. However, he had not one single propensity toward sin. The word "propensity" is synonymous with "inclination."

What does the pen of inspiration tell us?

Notice that Mrs. White says "human nature" but does not here say "sinful nature." And here's an interesting statement that implies with a sinful nature, perfection would be impossible:

In light of the above statements, the "knife edge" of the paradox seems to be included in the following:


To me, that implies that having a "sinful nature" must be separate from the concepts of being a "sinner" or even of having "propensities" to sin. It appears that "sinful nature" means something different than we have traditionally thought.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Like newborn believers, Jesus also partook of "the divine nature" and "escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust . . . the sin that dwelleth in me . . . that is, in my flesh". "It is the privilege of every believer in Christ to possess Christ's nature, a nature far above that which Adam forfeited by transgression." {UL 18.3} Newborn believers are recreated with a new and superior nature and they are, consequently, enabled and empowered to experience "righteousness and true holiness" like Jesus did. Possessing sinful flesh nature, therefore, in no way hinders or prevents growth in grace, nor does it stop believers from "perfecting holiness" "more and more unto the perfect day".

Amen to that.

I really hope this thread doesn't stretch to 100 pages as it has in the past, among others here.

Synonymous???! Nope: propensity means habits built up from practice; inclination means basic sinfulness. Hereditary propensity (below) means the habits of one's ancesters. "In him...was not for one moment...an evil propensity": that means he never practised the sin burdening his adopted, sinful human nature.

We know this from what else she wrote, and the Bible in totality teaches.

Indeed, since we sin because we're sinful - not, 'we sin because we're sinners'! - the difference between being sinful and sinning, for us, is personal choice, not semantics.

Propensities result from inclinations that are acted upon rather than rejected. Therefore, righteousness by faith is truly pragmatic: shall we choose to be like Jesus in our thoughts and deeds, or shall we struggle by ourselves - and fail to be good all by ourselves, or think we cannot mirror/reflect Jesus perfectly, day by day in more and more ways, in this life as grace cannot enable that in us even though we believe? "The faith of Jesus" is a correct translation for Gal 2:20 and Rev 14:12, since that is the very spiritual tool by which we can follow Jesus to the uttermost, whithersoever he leads us.

"Shall we choose to be like Jesus in our thoughts and deeds"? Yes!

"Shall we struggle by ourselves - and fail to be good all by ourselves"? God forbid!

"Shall think we cannot mirror/reflect Jesus perfectly, day by day in more and more ways, in this life?" Certainly not!

"Shall we think grace cannot enable that in us even though we believe?" No way!

This thread is moving faster than I can keep up with. But I'll try to catch up.


Propensity does not mean habits. Even in your own explanation, that wouldn't make sense. It is possible for one to gain inclinations from the habits of his ancestors. But how can he gain his ancestor's habits through heredity? Habits, by definition, are actions, and therefore cannot be passed on.

But don't take my word for it. Here's a quote from the 1828 Webster's dictionary, just a few years before EGW's ministry:

Notice that there is no mention of habits, or even actions. The meaning of propensity is inclination or tendency.

The impetus to change the meaning of propensity is seen below.


Now that we know what propensity means, and more importantly, what it meant in EGW's time, we can understand this better.

True, Jesus never practiced sin. But His holiness runs much deeper than many people think. More than refraining from acts of sin, Jesus did not have the propensity, or inclination, to sin. IOW, not only did He abstain from sin in His thoughts, words, and actions, He did not have even the stain of sin in his passions and desires.

Why are so many people so adamant that Jesus was selfish inwardly? One reason is that they want to excuse their own inward selfishness. They might be able to keep their bodies from sinning, but they know that their thoughts and feelings are undeniably selfish. And since their assurance of salvation is grounded in replicating Christ's experience, they must bring Him down to their level of stunted holiness so that they can say, "Jesus was like us, so we must be OK."

But the fact is that Jesus was more holy than us. We who are selfish can only copy the Pattern, but we will never equal it. Our assurance is not in replicating His righteousness, but in accepting it as a gift. We cannot offer to God the filthy rags of our sinful humanity, so we must rely on Christ's sinlessness.

Hereditary propensity means the habits of one's ancestors?
And how is one born with that?
Anyway, Ellen White is clear that Jesus was not born with inherent propensities of disobedience, like Adam's posterity:

"Because of sin his [Adam's] posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. ... not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity." {5BC 1128.4}

Thanks for taking the time - it can be a tad time consuming.


Now, let not the words of Scripture or of SOP be defined by a dictionary, but by the Word of God.

Remember this?
Not retain something that's an intrisic part of our sinful flesh? - but, we lose such parts of us only when Jesus returns, i.e. when translated/resurrected to glorified humanity. Therefore, since this statement is about character cleansing (see original!), sinful propensities are things we add to our character - so may choose to let go, not things we find in our sinful flesh.

I feel sorry for anyone thinking according to what you have heard and written about, below!

Assurance in Jesus is indeed about who and what he is for us! That assurance is valuable only as we seek to do God's will: as we give more of our sinful traits to Jesus in exchange for his righteous traits of character, our assurance that he is keeps us cheerful, all the way.

No, no, no: Jesus did not "have" sinful flesh!!! Jesus "took" (Heb 2:14) sinful flesh: the difference is he didn't accept what we are born with when he took it as his own and was born with it. Burdened with selfishness in his adopted humanity, he leaned on his Father to choose God's will. Thus, he was not stained in his character by sin, nor did the corruption of a carnal mind and guilt rest on him for a moment: the mind of Christ is the Holy Spirit ruling the thoughts and motives, etc.

Sorting out the humanity of Christ our Saviour is quite crucial, so we can know just what exactly he saved us from and what it is we can get rid of with him in our lives.

One last thought: Sister White does say that we cannot copy the pattern..., but she wasn't refering to Christ's human character of righteousness. She was refering to his humiliation of giving up his throne of glory in heaven to come down to our level of sinfulness as a creature on this planet. Definitely not that we can't mirror his example, for Jesus by grace and his own deeds has opened the way for us to do just that. Thus A T Jones' commentary on the book of Hebrews is entitled "The Consecrated Way to Christian Perfection".

Only have time for a quickie...


Where in inspiration can we find that we can be born with our ancestors' bad habits as part of our heredity?

It is crucial that a proper understanding of the words be reached before developing one's theology upon them!

pro·pen·si·ty n. pl. pro·pen·si·ties An innate inclination; a tendency. See Synonyms at predilection. [From propense, inclined, from Latin prpnsus, past participle of prpendre, to be inclined; see propend.]

We are often born with the inclinations of our ancestors. For example, alcoholism tends to run in families. No, the baby is not an alcoholic, but he or she is frequently born with the inclination toward alcoholism, and one drink may be all that is necessary to catapult the individual into the habit, from which it is very difficult to escape owing to the hereditary weakness.

That is an example of an "inherited" sort of weakness. But there are also "cultivated" ones which are more ambiguously "inherited." For example, if parents are very prideful, it is common to see the children inherit the same tendency--but this may be on account of its having been modeled for them.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Does it say anywhere that the unholy clamorings of sinful flesh cause corruption? Do we incur guilt and condemnation because the desires of our flesh are unholy?

What do you mean by "keep their bodies from sinning"? Is it possible to indulge the desires of the flesh without the "thoughts and feelings [being sinful and] undeniably selfish"?

What do you mean by "He did not have even the stain of sin in his passions and desires"? Is it possible to be tempted in every way newborn believers are if the flesh is pure and sinless, if its desires are wholly in harmony with the will of God?

What do you mean by "inward selfishness"? Ellen wrote, "The peace which passeth knowledge will cost us battles with the powers of darkness, struggles severe against selfishness and inward sins." {RH, August 2, 1881 par. 8} At what point in the Christian walk does Jesus set believers free from the burden of "selfishness and inward sins"?

This is the logic you are using:
Jesus cannot heal birth defects.
Jesus can heal sinful propensities.
Therefore, sinful propensities are not birth defects.

This is where you fail to see God's power. Is He able to fix something that is broken at birth? Has God shown the ability to heal birth defects? Yes, He has. Just because you are born with a problem does not mean He cannot solve it.

So, if we acknowledge that Jesus can heal all defects, including hereditary ones, then there is no need to violate the English language and stipulate that propensities are habits rather than tendencies.


Here's what I get from that: Jesus took our sinful flesh, but He didn't have it, nor did He accept it, though He was born with it. This is a meaning of "took" with which I am unfamiliar.

Now, if we are talking about Jesus "taking upon Himself" something, then that makes more sense. Something like He took upon Himself our sin, but He didn't have sin.


So, did Jesus have selfishness?


Exactly. If you believe that Jesus had the same sinful propensities that sinners do, then you have no hope of ever eliminating them. But if you believe that Jesus did not have sinful propensities, then there is hope that you can crucify your sinful passions and desires.


Do you believe that sinners can equal Christ's character?

Does it say anywhere that the unholy clamorings of sinful flesh cause corruption? Do we incur guilt and condemnation because the desires of our flesh are unholy?

What do you mean by "keep their bodies from sinning"? Is it possible to indulge the desires of the flesh without the "thoughts and feelings [being sinful and] undeniably selfish"?

What do you mean by "He did not have even the stain of sin in his passions and desires"? Is it possible to be tempted in every way newborn believers are if the flesh is pure and sinless, if its desires are wholly in harmony with the will of God?

What do you mean by "inward selfishness"? Ellen wrote, "The peace which passeth knowledge will cost us battles with the powers of darkness, struggles severe against selfishness and inward sins." {RH, August 2, 1881 par. 8} At what point in the Christian walk does Jesus set believers free from the burden of "selfishness and inward sins"?

I'll have to do this a little at a time.


Not exactly. It would seem obvious that unholy = corrupt.

However, there is a text that says our righteousnesses are filthy. So, if even our righteousnesses are filthy, certainly our unholiness would also be filthy.


The carnal mind is enmity to God. Do guilt and condemnation come with enmity to God? If so, then yes, unholiness brings guilt and condemnation.

I'm finding this part of the discussion counter-intuitive. Are we really discussing whether or not unholiness is a bad thing? I would think that to be obvious. But if we lose sight of how holy God is, then we start to think unholiness isn't so bad after all.

Satan is unholy. He tempts us to sin. Do either cause guilt or condemnation? No, of course not. So, why do you think the fact our sinful flesh nature tempts us to sin causes guilt and condemnation? As you know, sinful flesh nature cannot sin, it can only tempt us to sin. Ellen wrote:


Our sinful flesh tempts us with corrupt thoughts and affections. So long as we put these temptations to death we do not incur guilt or condemnation. All temptations begin as unholy thoughts and feelings. It is not a sin to be tempted. Ellen wrote:

Don't you think that Satan is guilty and condemned for being an unholy tempter, whether or not you fall for his tricks?

No, it is not possible to indulge the desires of the flesh without the thoughts and feelings being selfish. The error against which I most vehemently disagree is the idea that a man can remain pure while his thoughts and feelings are sinful and selfish, so long as he can keep his body from fulfilling the wicked desires of his corrupt heart. The corrupt heart is corrupt in itself, regardless of the motions of the body.


No, one cannot be tempted in every WAY newborn believers are unless he also battle the powers and passions of unregenerate nature. The SOP tells us this: He who has determined to enter the spiritual kingdom will find that all the powers and passions of unregenerate nature, backed by the forces of the kingdom of darkness, are arrayed against him. {AA 476.3} That is what newborn believers must face.

However, we are not told that Jesus was tempted in this WAY. He was tempted in all POINTS as we are, but not in all WAYS. I can almost guarantee that He was never tempted to go to the prom on a Friday night, like I was. More importantly, I am sure that His nature would have recoiled at the thought of such evil, while my nature was enamored.

Would you have us believe that Jesus was not pure and sinless, or that He had an unregenerate nature at some point?


That quote is a pretty good explanation of what I mean. Inward selfishness is selfishness that is not on the outside. It is inward sin.


At the crown. But from the cross to the crown, there is wrestling against outward wrong and inbred sin.

At what point in Christ's walk did He have "selfishness and inward sins"? And at what point was He set free from these?

Yes. But sinful flesh nature isn't a sentient being. It can tempt us to sin, but it cannot sin itself. Thus, even though it is condemned, it cannot incur guilt. Guilt is the fruit of sinning.

By the way, do you agree with the rest of the post? Namely, do you agree sinful flesh tempts us with unholy thoughts and feelings and that we do not incur guilt or condemnation so long as we refuse to indulge its sinful desires?

What do you mean by "corrupt heart" and "motions of the body". Newborn believers are born again with a new heart, mind, and nature complete with new tastes, motives, desires, and tendencies. The unholy thoughts and feelings that come to mind are temptations, and like any other temptation they must be resisted. If resisted unto the honor and glory of God, no guilt or contamination is incurred. The origin of such unholy thoughts and feelings is sinful flesh nature - not the mind and heart of the newborn believer.


But you were born again with a "new nature", a "nature far above that which Adam forfeited by transgression." You are also a "partaker of the divine nature." What practical difference does it make if the temptation to attend prom on Friday night originates with sinful flesh nature or evil angels?

Yes, I believe Jesus' human nature was burdened with "sinful flesh" the same as you and me. It warred against Him in the same way it wars against us. Do you think Jesus was ever tempted to do something evil? Or, do you think He was only tempted to do something good at the wrong time?


What is the origin of such selfishness? Does it originate with the new nature, mind, and heart Jesus implants within newborn believers? Or, does it originate with sinful flesh nature?


By "at the crown" do you mean when Jesus returns and rewards us with a sinless nature and body? If so, do you envision believers experiencing selfish and sin-stained fruits of the Spirit until the day Jesus arrives? Do you believe "all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags" describes "the fruit of the Spirit"? Ellen wrote:


Do you think the passages above describe "the fruit of the Spirit"?


Jesus took upon Him sinful flesh nature at His incarnation with all its evil, unholy desires. His fallen human nature tempted Him from within to indulge His innocent and legitimate needs in sinful ways. He resisted them from the moment of consciousness to the day He died. He was free of it in the sense He never acted out its unholy desires. But in another sense He was free of it the day He was resurrected without it.

So, you're saying that it is condemned, though it is guiltless. Does God condemn the guiltless? I don't think so.

If guilt is only the fruit of sinning, then how is it that Adam can give us guilt as an inheritance? Do we also inherit "sinning"?


I agree that if we are tempted by the lusts of our own sinful natures and we shun it immediately, we do not incur guilt in the sense that such lusts are unavoidable deficiencies that Jesus covers. I do not believe that such fleshly lusts are holy and righteous fruits of the Spirit. They are sinful and need atonement by Christ's blood.

And neither is the flesh a sentient being. So, if the non-sentient sinful flesh nature tempts the non-sentient flesh to commit some evil act, is there no guilt incurred, since none of the parties involved are sentient?

My father says this happens to him all the time. His sinful nature gets his body to do some rather nasty things, while his new, spiritual nature objects and wants to be holy the whole time. And afterwards, his new, spiritual nature is always very sad about the incident, and therefore remains perfectly acceptable to God. Do you buy his story?

We are not guilty of sinning in Eden. We need not repent of Adam's sin. "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." (Eze 18:20)

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." (2 Cor 5:10) "So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." (Rom 14:12) Do you think "sinful flesh" will "appear before the judgment seat of Christ" to "give account of himself to God"? If not, why not?

All have sinned in Adam and all have been forgiven in Jesus. Therefore, all begin, as it were, with a blank slate. Thus, all will be judged according to their own words and works - not according to Adam's sin or the sins of anyone else. Ellen wrote:


"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." (Romans 5:18) We must choose to be saved, otherwise, we are condemned to death by default. Our eternal destiny is based on the character we form in this lifetime. "The character as formed in this world determines one’s destiny for eternity." {CTr 188.3}


What do you mean by "unavoidable deficiencies"?

What is the difference between "lusts of the flesh" and "fruit of the Spirit"?

In what sense does Jesus atone for the unholy clamorings of sinful flesh?

What is the difference between "sinful flesh nature" and "the flesh"? Ellen wrote:


Aren't "sinful flesh nature" and "the flesh" one and the same thing?

Also, it sounds like your father interprets "it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me" in a way that allows him to blame sinning on his flesh. So, no, I don't "buy his story". Neither am I convinced of your story. I'm not ready to buy the idea that God counts me guilty and condemned because my fallen flesh tempts me to indulge my innocent and legitimate needs in sinful ways. Nor am I ready to buy the idea that the righteous results of abiding of Jesus are selfish and sin-stained because my fallen flesh nature clamors for sinful expression.

PS - Please address the other questions and comments in my post. Thank you.

I'm not saying that we must repent for what he did. But we must repent for what we are. Selfishness is sin and needs repentance and atonement, even if we don't "do" it.

If a person is selfish, depraved, and lustful, does he need to repent and be born again if he's only like this in the privacy of his own mind?

Yes, cherishing selfish and sinful thoughts and feelings in the privacy of one's own mind requires repentance, pardon, and atonement. But if we don't "do it", that is if we don't cherish them or act them out in words or deeds we do not incur guilt or condemnation. The sinful, selfish thoughts and feelings that come to mind via sinful flesh are nothing more than temptations. It is not a sin to be tempted. We need not repent because we are tempted. The idea that being tempted from within via sinful flesh causes corruption is unbiblical. Where in the Bible is such an idea articulated?

PS - I look forward to you responding to the rest of the comments and questions above. Thank you.

Bump.