I beg to differ.

The Old Covenant was ALSO supposed to be written upon our hearts....or else, what do you call knowing it by heart?



Tom, let's face it...there's more than one way to interpret. Perhaps we are at an impasse here. If you choose to see it only your way, you'll never understand how I see it in a different way. If you choose to believe that everytime the word "but" appears in the Bible or in Ellen White that it obviously contrasts two different things, then so be it. I do not believe this to be the case. English grammar can be tricky. In the Ellen White statement you quoted, notice the use of the quotation marks? That's an important thing in English. The quotes around a phrase mark something that has been called such, but which the author may or may not have preferred to term such. Notice that all three of these terms were in those quotes:

"old covenant"
"new covenant"
"better promises"

So your statement, the way I read it, actually proves my perspective the more.

To summarize:

a) The law is still written in stone. Stone represents something which is rigid, hard, inflexible, unchanging, and permanent.
b) It has always been part of the covenant to have said law written in our hearts.
c) Is has always been part of the covenant to accept Christ's righteousness. This is why the whole sacrificial system was instituted--to point people to their Redeemer yet future.
d) Our own righteousness was never sufficient.

If you study the "ceremonial laws" that you are so apt to forget and to abolish, you will see the beauty of the Gospel which you term the "new covenant" in them.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, here's several different arguments I can think of in favor of the view I'm presenting:

1.In Jeremiah, God says that the New Covenant is not like the other covenant referred to. The difference? This "new" covenant is written in the heart.

2.EGW contrasts the old and new covenant (there's no ambiguity that this is what she's doing). She says:



Clearly these are things which are not present in the Old Covenant, or what's she's writing makes no sense. What else can "the 'new covenant' was founded upon 'better promises' mean? She identifies these better promises as "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," making clear that these promises were not a part of the Old Covenant. I can't see any ambiguity here at all. Can you? If so, how?

3.Waggoner writes:







If you are interesting in knowing the historical circumstances which led to her giving these endorsements, I would be happy to help you research this.

4.Paul writes:



Here's a brief comment from Waggoner on this:



Please note how closely this mirrors what EGW wrote in the PP passage quoted above.

So we have 4 witnesses, all agreeing, Paul, Jeremiah, Ellen White, and Waggoner (who she endorsed).

This is without even mentioning Hebrews.

I don't understand this comment. Reading this, one would assume that you think these laws have not been abolished. Is this true? Do you keep the ceremonial laws?

Of course, there is much to be gained in studying them. I've not suggested otherwise. Also, your assertion that I am "apt" to "abolish" the "ceremonial laws" makes it sound like this is some idea I invented.



So this isn't unique to me, right?

Regarding forgetting them, you are guilty here of putting words in my mouth as I've not suggested this. Indeed, the book "The Cross and its Shadow" by S. N. Haskell is a beautiful study on this topic, of which I'm well aware.

Regarding the ceremonial law bearing witness to the new covenant, I'm well aware of this too. In fact, Waggoner dwells on this point in his pamphlet "The Gospel in Galatians" as a rebuttal to Butler's idea that the law in Galatians was the ceremonial law.

Tom,

You will admit that Waggoner had no inspiration for his study other than the scriptures. Convince me, therefore, from the source; for I will not be convinced otherwise.

As I said before, I will not be pitting Waggoner, White, Jones, or others against each other in this discussion.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

That is true. And yet it is not true. That is, I think you are misunderstanding it. God makes the new covenant because the people had broken the old covenant. How is that? The people had NOT written the covenant upon their hearts as they were supposed to. So God enters into a new contract--a repeat of the former, but basically providing a clean slate and saying to this new generation that He would make the covenant again with them, and that this time, He would seek to make it stronger in their hearts than the previous generation had experienced. God's portion of this covenant relationship remains the same. His promises are as strong as ever. But the people will reach a higher standard in fulfilling their part of it.



In your mind, there is no ambiguity. In my mind there is also no ambiguity. But we still manage to see her meaning from two separate angles...how is that?



Is it really so clear? If it is so clear as you say, please answer one simple question for me:

Exactly what specific things are new and different (contrasting) with the so-called "new covenant" as opposed to the "old covenant?"

I happen to make sense of what she is writing from a different point of view. It does make sense. But it may not say exactly what you appear to have inferred.


Thank you, but for the time being I'm not interested. Give me the Bible.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, you say "give me the Bible" but you say to disregard Paul. If you want to have a discussion based on the Bible, then Paul should be accepted. If you're going to cite the SOP, then I should be able to cite the SOP too. This is reasonable, isn't it?

Now the SOP endorsed Waggoner's position, so if her writings are inspired, and she calls Waggoner's positions correct, then isn't is simple logic that we should consider what that position was? You expressed doubt regarding her endorsement of Waggoner's position, so I provided more evidence to support it. I have also offered to help you research the historical context under which it was written. I don't understand why you would reject Waggoner's position out of hand (other than the obvious reason that it doesn't agree with your position).



It was never the people's job to write the law upon their heart. Only God can do this. God would have done it on Sinai, but the people refused, to God entered into this other covenant, the "Old" or "Sinatic" covenant, because of the hardness of the people's hearts. Anytime God writes the law on someone's heart, that's the New Covenant.



My point regarding there not being ambiguity was specific to her contrasting the Old and New Covenants. I wrote ".EGW contrasts the old and new covenant (there's no ambiguity that this is what she's doing)" and then gave cited what she said to show that this was the case. When you say "see her meaning from two separate angles" do you mean that you disagree with what I wrote? You don't think she is contrasting the Old and the New Covenants?



Let's look at what she wrote:



Here's what's different:

a.The New Covenant is established upon better promises.
b.These promises include the promise of forgiveness.
c.Also included is the grace of God to renew the heart, bringing it into harmony with God's law.
d.Instead of the law being written on stone, it's written in the heart.
e.Instead of going to establish our own righteousness, we accept the righteousness of Christ.

I'm curious, where did you get your idea from? (that the Old and New covenant is the same; I'm asking what the motivation for your idea is; what in Scripture, or whatever, has led you to the idea you have) What do you do with Galatians 4, where Paul writes:



Isn't this speaking of two different covenants, and contrasting them?

Really? Then I might ask the next question:

When did the "old" covenant become "old"?

You will soon find yourself needing to date the "new" covenant earlier and earlier, my friend. Personally, I date it from the beginning. God had less need of asking people to memorize His law in the beginning, for the people were still so fresh from the Creator's hands as to have superb memories which did not forget a thing having heard it but once. Later on, however, especially after the flood, there was need of the admonition to keep His laws in their hearts.


Job is widely considered to have been the first book of the Bible written. Deuteronomy is certainly among the first written. And it is made yet clearer than these references as well:

I can take a hint, and that is far more than a hint. The verses which follow make it clear that by committing to memory God's laws, the people would be enabled to follow them; and through this obedience, they were to receive blessings.


Tom, she used the same terms that Paul used. Does that mean she was contrasting them? If one speaks of the "Old Testament" and the "New Testament" does this necessarily mean that one is valid and the other is expired? Did you notice my use of quotation marks? This means I do not believe that the popular terms used are necessarily fitting. I might also speak of the "Second Coming" in the same manner, for Christ has already blessed this earth with His coming to it more times than two--and the term "Second Coming" is just a popular cliche without numerical or chronological significance. When I use the "" marks, it means I am using the term without respect to its supposed meaning.

Ellen White used quotes around those terms "New Covenant" and "Old Covenant," as well as around the term "better promises."

I had tried to point this out to you in my previous post. It is an important point. I hope you now understand my meaning better. There are many places where Ellen White quotes from the Bible, and uses quotations in proper citation form. There are also many places where she will quote, and yet not use them. However, it is _unusual_ to use quotes for a two-word phrase, especially when that two-word phrase is the popular term/title for the concept. For her to use quotes around "new covenant" is tantamount to her using quotes around "Jesus Christ" or "Ten Commandments." In other words, if you miss the significance of the quotes, you have purposely chosen to interpret after your own fashion.



A. You have mis-quoted her. It should read: The "new covenant" was established upon "better promises." Notice the quotation marks.
B. True. God has always offered His forgiveness! Praise the Lord for that! "Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation." (Exodus 34:7, KJV) --Isn't this what you would have called the "Old Covenant?"
C. Yes. Again, God has always given His help to bring us into harmony with His law. Giving us the law was the first step in bringing us into harmony with it, wouldn't you agree?
D. Correct me if I'm wrong, but so far you have posited that the New Covenant was first prophesied through the prophet Jeremiah, right? And you believe the New Covenant became a fact during Jesus' ministry here? Jeremiah did indeed predict that God would write His laws upon our hearts. However, would you agree that Jeremiah lived well after the time of Solomon? How about pushing the "New Covenant" back a few hundred years before Jeremiah. And, while we're at it, how about changing it to present tense, instead of future tense. Have a look at these words of Solomon:

[/quote]
E. Indeed. Abel's sacrifice signified his acceptance of Christ's righteousness. Cain's sacrifice represented his own works. This lesson has been always present with us through the ages. God has always taught us to look to Christ, and His righteousness, who only can take our penalty and in exchange give us His righteousness. The Ten Commandments themselves teach us that God will help us to follow His laws. They do not, as many suppose, state that we must keep those laws by ourselves. Those laws are written in the future tense, and are 10 promises of freedom from sin.


Yes. There is contrast here. But notice what is being contrasted? The two contrasting points are these: "born after the flesh" versus those who are free "by promise." Why are we in bondage? what is meant by "the flesh?" Paul is speaking of two things here: 1) our carnal nature, sold unto sin; and 2) the penalty we face for that sin. What is the promise then? The promise is that of our Redeemer who has taken our penalty to Himself, and brought us out of "Egypt" (a biblical metaphor for "darkness," "atheism," "slavery" or "sin").

As for why I discovered the covenants to be unified, well, it started when I began to study them carefully for myself. I have not received this knowledge except through the Bible. I'm certain there are others who understand the covenants to be one and the same, for I have since talked with some of them. But I must say I approached the study initially with a rather clean slate, not having heard much discussion in any particular direction on them before.

I would say one of the trigger points for me in understanding the covenants had to do with my study of the testaments. Paul speaks of the "new testament" as does Jesus. The terms are so closely tied, that one can hardly avoid looking for a relationship between such things as "new testament" and "new covenant."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I'm going to kind of jump around on the response (i.e., respond to different points from your post as I have time).



It looks like you're just looking for criticisms to make. I wasn't quoting her at all here! You asked what was different based on what she wrote, so I quoted her verbatim, and then listed the differences. This list is a list *I* created; I'm not quoting her in this list!



No, it's not.

Notice she says the "new covenant" was based on "better promises." That the "new covenant" has these "better promises" means that old does not, given how she structured her thought.

She writes:



immediately followed by:



contrasting the two.



I was pointing out the differences she spoke of. She listed this under something the "new covenant" has, as opposed to something the "old covenant" had.



No.



No. You'll notice I pointed out that no one has been saved except under the New Covenant. Now, given that I know that Adam was saved, then I must believe the New Covenant existed as far back as Adam, right?





Correct. Abel was under the New Covenant, and Cain, in principle, under the Old.



If the people had allowed God to write the law in their hearts, there would have been no need to write them on stone. I assume you agree with this? The problem was not the law that was written on stone, but the hardness of heart that led to that happening.

EGW is pointing out that we accept the righteousness of Christ, and have the law written in the heart, as opposed to its being simply written on stone, and going about to establish our own righteousness. The context of her writing this is contrasting the Old and New Covenants. You can see that she quoted from Jeremiah in so doing. She is applying what Jeremiah wrote, and expanding upon Jeremiah's thought a bit, to the New Covenant, and contrasting it to the Old. "Instead" of the law being written on stone (Old), the law is written in the heart (New). Instead of going about to establish our own righteousness (Old), we accept the righteousness of Christ (New).

The two covenants are contrasted.



Note there are "two" covenants. They are contrasted in that one corresponds to Hagar whereas the other corresponds to Sarah. How can they be the same thing? Paul's point is that they are *not* the same thing. One leads to bondage, whereas the other leads to freedom.



Paul is contrasting two covenants, one of which leads to bondage, and one of which leads to freedom.



What I was really getting at is how you came to the conclusion that the Old and the New Covenants are the same thing? I don't understand how one could read Jeremiah, or EGW, or Paul, or Waggoner, any one of these, and come to this conclusion. I guess if you came to this conclusion from Scripture alone, you can leave out EGW and Waggoner. Can you explain to me how from Jeremiah and Paul one should come to the conclusion that the Old and New Covenant reference the same thing?

Here's one question that brings out a difficulty involved. Paul writes that the New Covenant is based on better promises. If it is based on better promises, how can the New Covenant be the same as the Old? If they were the same thing, wouldn't it follow that they were both based on the same promises?

Tom,

You are letting "math" get in the way of spiritual discernment. Revelation speaks of "two witnesses." Does this mean that they do not have the same message?

What about the "three angels?" Are these presented in contrast? Do they not work together to present a singular and unified message?

What about the two Adams? Of course they are "different", but the fact that Jesus is likened to Adam--do you believe this is intended to be in contrast? or is it intended to show similarity? Perhaps both in an only-God-can-do fashion?

What about Pharaoh's two dreams, one of corn, one of cows? Were these different? Certainly. But was their message different?

What about the many promises of the coming Messiah? Were they different? or were they the same?

What about the flood and Sodom & Gomorrha? Were their punishments the same? Did they symbolize the same thing? How similar were they? Is the take-home message the same?

What about the Ten Commandments? Are they not unified? or are they ten separate messages, so distinct that nowadays we must choose which of them still applies?

I invite you to open your mind and to take a second look at the covenants. Test it by first assuming that it may be possible that they bear the same message. Begin looking for how the other puzzle pieces fit into the equation. It just may be that you will soon see what I see--that these "apparent contradictions" are in fact harmonious statements.

To conclude, I do not see Ellen White to be making any statements which are incongruous to the Bible in this.

As to Paul's use of the term "better promises," I believe the promises are better in the same way that Jesus' "new" commandment was "new" (it was not new at all). They apply to US, in OUR TIME. The promise is better if it applies to you personally, and not only to a previous generation which you are not privileged to be a part of. AND, the promise is better if you will keep your side of it better than said previous generation.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.