Tom, you said

quote:

---

Remember that the Old Covenant:
1) Leads to bondage
2) It is based on faulty promises
3) It is a system of works-rightoueness

These three points bear out that it was not initiated by God.

---

I agree with the three points, but not with the conclusion. The three points are a result of the pervertion of the covenant by the people.

What are the "rules" on which the old covenant is based? The ten commandments.

What are the terms of the covenant? "Obey and live."

Does this lead to bondage? Yes, if you are without a Savior. "As a result of Adam's disobedience, every human being is a transgressor of the law, sold under sin. Unless he repents and is converted, he is under bondage to the law. ... But by perfect obedience to the requirements of the law, man is justified. Only through faith in Christ is such obedience possible.{ST, July 23, 1902}
"When man transgresses he is under the condemnation of the law, and it becomes to him a yoke of bondage" {ML 250}.
To be under the condemnation of the law is to be under bondage, and whoever is without a Savior is under the condemnation of the law.

Is this ("obey and live") a faulty promise? Yes, if it is not accompanied by the promise of a Savior (which is part of the abrahamic covenant, not of the old covenant). Since in our sinful nature we can't obey, we aren't entitled to life, but to death.

Is it a system of works-righteousness? Yes, if you try to obey in order to obtain righteousness and life. Only a Savior could obey the law perfectly and then give you righteousness and life.
"Under the new covenant, the conditions by which eternal life may be gained are the same as under the old--perfect obedience. ... In the new and better covenant, Christ has fulfilled the law for the transgressors of law, if they receive Him by faith as a personal Saviour."{AG 136}

If "obey and live" is understood correctly, it is simply the New Covenant. It is rightouesness by faith. It this case, there is no other covenant.

What you wrote is very close to correct. God did initiate an "obey and live" covenant. The covenant He initiated was the Covenant He made with Abraham. The people perveted God's covenant, and then everything else is as you said.

Take a look at "The Principle of the Old Covenant." I think that may help our communication.

Tom,

“Obey and live” are the terms of both the old and the new covenant:

"Under the new covenant the conditions by which eternal life may be gained are the same as under the old--perfect obedience" (That I May Know Him, 299).

In fact, this is the very condition God presented to Adam in Eden. It was a condition applicable then, since Adam had a perfect, holy nature. He could obey and live. He could obtain eternal life by obedience. We can’t, since ours is a sinful nature. Therefore, after the fall this condition had to be accompanied by the promise of a Savior.

The main difference between the old and the new covenant is that the old covenant does not contain the promise of the Savior, exactly because its purpose was just to lead the israelites back to the new covenant. God’s purpose was that when they felt condemned by the law, they would understand, through the sacrificial offerings, that they needed a Savior, and then they would seek this Savior through the promise of the abrahamic covenant. The problem is that they never discerned this, and were attached both to the moral and to the ceremonial laws, neither of which could save them.

As to the old covenant, it was God who established its rules, conditions and blessings; He ratified the covenant; therefore I can’t see how it can be said that the people initiated the covenant. Besides, I can’t see why God would submit Himself to a covenant initiated by human beings, much less to a works-based covenant. What you seem to be saying is that God made a covenant with the people (the new) with which the people did not agree, and the people made a covenant with God (the old) with which God did not agree. Therefore there would have been no agreement at all but, contrarily to Waggoner, Ellen White says that a covenant is a mutual agreement _ God establishes the conditions and man must agree with them:

“A covenant is an agreement by which parties bind themselves and each other to the fulfillment of certain conditions. Thus the human agent enters into agreement with God to comply with the conditions specified in His Word. His conduct shows whether or not he respects these conditions. Man gains everything by obeying the covenant-keeping God. God's attributes are imparted to man, enabling him to exercise mercy and compassion. God's covenant assures us of His unchangeable character. . . . We must know for ourselves what His requirements and our obligations are. The terms of God's covenant are, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself." These are the conditions of life. "This do," Christ said, "and thou shalt live" (Luke 10:27, 28). {AG 158}

I spent about an hour responding to your post. Unfortunately this forum lost my post when I inadvertanly hit some key. I suppose I should have saved it. I'll respond again, but unfortunately is far less detail.

This is really upsetting. I've had this problem here before. I guess I'll just have to remember to fashion a response elsewhere and copy and paste it here, so I don't give it a chance to lose it.

The short response is that it is impossible that God initiated the Old Testament, which leads to bondage and is based on faulty promises. How could God initiate something which leads to bondage? It's contrary to His character.

OTOH is is according to God's character to graciously follow our inclinations even when they are misgiven. For example
a) The COI wanted flesh, so God obliged.
b) They wanted multiple wives. God obliged.
c) They wanted to divorce their wives. God obliged.
d) They wanted a king. God obliged.
e) They wanted the Old Covenant. God obliged.

Finally I'll point out that it is impossible that Ellen White actually agreed with the position of those who opposed Waggoner on the covenants and disagreed with Waggoner. This is so obvious it amazes me that this needs to be pointed out. She wrote:

quote:

---

I stand in perfect freedom, calling light, light, and darkness, darkness. I told them yesterday that the position of the covenants I believed as presented in my volume 1 [ Patriarchs and Prophets ]. If that was Dr. Waggoner's position then he had the truth.

---

Shortly after this she stated that Waggoner's position was "truth," showing that she understood it was in harmony with hers. That's clear, is it not?

She called Waggoner's position "clear and convincing" and said those who were seeking to oppose his views were "wasting their investagative powers." The same thing is true today.

quote:

---

The ten commandments, Thou shalt, and Thou shalt not, are ten promises, assured to us if we render obedience to the law governing the universe" (Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 1, p. 1105).

There is not a negative in that law, although it may appear thus. It is DO and live (idem).

The terms of the "old covenant" were, obey and live. . . . The "new covenant" was established upon "better promises"—the promise of forgiveness of sins and of the grace of God to renew the heart and bring it into harmony with the principles of God's law (PP 372)

---

This is in harmony with what Waggoner taught.

Tom,
It seems clear that our only, or main, apple of discord is who initiated the covenant.
What I see is that, in her endorsement of Waggoner’s view, Ellen White mentions specifically the position on the law:

“Night before last I was shown that evidences in regard to the covenants were clear and convincing. Yourself, Brother B, Brother C, and others are spending your investigative powers for naught to produce a position on the covenants to vary from the position that Brother [E. J.] Waggoner has presented… The covenant question is a clear question and would be received by every candid, unprejudiced mind, but I was brought where the Lord gave me an insight into this matter. You have turned from plain light because you were afraid that the law question in Galatians would have to be accepted. As to the law in Galatians, I have no burden and never have had.” --Letter 59, 1890, p. 6. (To Uriah Smith, March 8, 1890.) {9MR 329.1}

This, IMO, does not necessarily mean that she had to be in agreement with Waggoner in every detail of what he presented about the subject. The first point on which I can’t find agreement between them is the definition of covenant. While Waggoner says that

quote:

---

God's covenants with men can be nothing else than promises to them. … It is so rare for men to do anything without expecting an equivalent, that theologians have taken it for granted that it is the same with God. So they begin their dissertations on God's covenant with the statement that a covenant is "a mutual agreement between two or more persons, to do or refrain from doing certain things." But God does not make bargains with men, because He knows that they could not fulfil their part.

---

Ellen White says that

quote:

---

A covenant is an agreement by which parties bind themselves and each other to the fulfillment of certain conditions. Thus the human agent enters into agreement with God to comply with the conditions specified in His Word. His conduct shows whether or not he respects these conditions. Man gains everything by obeying the covenant-keeping God. God's attributes are imparted to man, enabling him to exercise mercy and compassion. God's covenant assures us of His unchangeable character. . . . We must know for ourselves what His requirements and our obligations are.

---

Another important point is that I can find no statement in EGW’s writings saying that the people initiated the covenant. She says, rather, that the covenant which was ratified, that is, the old covenant, was God’s covenant, and that the people just consented to obey the conditions or obligations of the covenant (see my post of December 15, 2004 09:40 AM).
On this basis my present position is that God initiated the covenant.
I am leaving on vacation today, so I won’t be able to participate regularly for some time (perhaps I have a chance to participate occasionally), but I want to thank you for the great discussion. I liked this forum very much and I look forward to participate in other discussions here.

As there is an ongoing similar topic in the New Light forum, I am bumping this one.

This is a great discussion, but I feel that at times we are so concerned about the differences between theologians and prophets that we tend to over look the simple story in the Bible.

The giving of the Old Covenant, starting in Exodus 19, is very self explanatory. God saves Israel from Egypt, delivers them through the Red sea, saves them from thirst by giving water from a rock, saves them from hunger by giving them manna from heaven, saves them from the snakes, the heat, the drought, the desert, and then comes and asks them if they want to be His “special people”.

The terms of the OC were not about salvation. God already saved Israel. Israel was saved by God fulfilling His promise to Abraham. The OC was God asking Israel to be a special people and carry the seed of the Messiah, along with all the compacted prophecies concerning Him, that are found in the Sanctuary, Priesthood, Feasts, sacrifices, and ceremonies, down through the ages and deliver God’s Messiah to the world for a Savior.

Remember that these ceremonies were the very teaching tool that God used to train Jesus young mind to know what His role was in Salvation.

God was asking Israel to be the context for the Messiah that would save the world. This is the Old Covenant! And Israel agreed thinking God chose them because they were special rather than God would make them special.

scott

PP 312
Having sprinkled the altar with the blood of the offerings, Moses "took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people." Thus the conditions of the covenant were solemnly repeated, and all were at liberty to choose whether or not they would comply with them. They had at the first promised to obey the voice of God; but they had since heard His law proclaimed; and its principles had been particularized, that they might know how much this covenant involved. Again the people answered with one accord, "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient." "When Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood, . . . and sprinkled both the book and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you." Hebrews 9:19, 20. {PP 312.2}

Hi MM,

I believe that Tom’s point is that the COI entered a covenant believing they could keep it and secure a better position with God. Even if the covenant was God’s idea, which I believe it was, it wasn’t God’s intention to offer Israel a covenant where their righteousness would gain them favor with God. His intention was to make them happy and prosperous in front of the whole world as a witness to His goodness.

They were to be God’s evangelists. They misunderstood this and believed that God wanted them to keep the law to earn salvation. So the covenant that God offered wasn’t the one they agreed to. The problem was in their mind!

scott