I’ve been at camp meeting for the last 5 days and am trying to catch up on this discussion.



Hi GC:

You claim to have gained your knowledge of the covenants from the Bible, but you don’t accept the Apostles version of the covenants. That’s pretty selective reading. You also have pretty selective reading ability when it comes to Ellen and the 1888 message. You are animate in believing in the penal atonement view which primarily comes from Paul, but reject Paul when it comes to the covenants and sanctuary.

The book of Hebrews is a commentary on the differences between the Old Covenant and the New. The OC was made of human shadows that represented heavenly realities. The OC was full of object lessons pointing to Christ that are obsolete (Heb 8), nailed to the cross (Col. 2), and a schoolmaster that we are no longer under (Gal. 3). Paul, in 2 Corinthians 3, calls it “the ministry of death” and “a ministry of condemnation”.

You make the point that because the NC is older than the OC it is some evidence that they are the same. What kind of logic is that? Does the sacrifice of an animal, that existed before the sacrifice of Jesus, make them the same? The only reason the OC is called Old is because it was ratified (put in effect) first by the blood of animals. Jesus didn’t ratify the OC. Animals ratified the old covenant. Jesus ratified the New Covenant, entered a heavenly sanctuary, and offered His blood and not the blood of an animal, after the OC was put in effect. What Jesus did was for the whole world, but what the priests of the OC did was only for Israel, only to Israel, the physical descendants of Jacob.

If you believe that the OC is the same as the new then you must keep the terms of the covenant, all of them, and those terms are "obey everything I’ve told you or else!" You need to be keeping the feast, sacrificing animals, join yourself with physical Israel, and you better do it in the land of Israel.

If, OTOH, you see Jesus as the fulfillment of all those types and shadows and you don’t keep all those laws, but depend on Christ’s righteousness then you are a part of God’s Spiritual Israel and the NC promises are being fulfilled in your heart.

Do I really need to make a list of the terms of the OC for you so that you can see that they are different?

scott

The promise is not something that you keep a side of. The promise is to have the law written in the heart, something we, as human beings, cannot do. God must do this. We can choose to have Him do this, but we cannot do it.

You made a similar statement earlier in speaking of how the people did not write the law on their hearts. Only God can do this. I'm having trouble following your thought here. What do you mean by saying the people did not write the law on their heart?



One of my favorite passages.

I'm trying to understand your comment above regarding the promises. It appears that you perceive the New Covenant to be the same as the Old Covenant, the only difference being one of time, is that correct? You speak about the Covenant (since to you the Old Covenant and the New are the same thing, I can just speak of the Covenant) as applying to one generation, but not to another. So the Old Covenant applied to one generation, but not to the other. The New applied to the other one. But since they are the same covenant, this doesn't seem to make much sense.

The only way I can make sense of this is to assume your idea is that the Covenants are the same, but they are called by different names, depending upon the circumstances. Is this your idea?

Scott, I wish to discuss these things respectfully. As a part of that, I hope we can be more cautious in making statements of what others have said or believed.

I have never said that I do not accept the Apostles. Saying that I do not accept them would be a flat lie, for I do indeed accept them.

Secondly, I have not been discussing, nor using the term "penal atonement." Where do you get any ideas as to what I may or may not believe on this point?

I want you to understand that while I do accept Paul, I do not accept everybody's interpretation of Paul. Is that fair? For example, many people believe from Paul's writings that it's ok to eat any kind of meat--clean or unclean (Rom. 14). I do not accept this view, and I believe it is a misinterpretation. Put plainly, there are many things that Paul says which are easily misunderstood by those without spiritual discernment, or even by those who simply have not received the concepts he presents in the light of other sources of inspiration, e.g. other Biblical authors. I do not particularly espouse the view that there is any specific point contained in Paul's writings which is impossible to deduce without him. But I DO accept Paul.

Additionally, even the Bible authors made mistakes. Paul made a few. I can prove it. And it seems inexcusable in Paul, given his upbringing and training...all which show me something of his personality. I've said before, and I still believe, Paul was not a detail-oriented individual. He was not a perfectionist, nor of a "melancholy" personality. Other authors, with other personalities, may have written more carefully than Paul.

I have personally experienced "inspiration." God has helped me to write music on more than one occasion. I know that God inspired the thoughts--but the words were mine. I even felt, in one place, that the words chosen fell short of the mark, but I could find no better substitute in the English language. I see the same thing happening to the inspired writers in the Bible and with Ellen White. When God inspires them, sometimes they complain of not having the language to express the message they've received.


I think the book of Hebrews is far more than a mere commentary on the covenants. It does comment on them. But is that the central focus of the book? I see faith in our Redeemer as the more central thought of Hebrews.

The sacrifices of the animals were the physical tokens of the sacrifice of Jesus to come. They were the tokens of the covenant. This covenant, however, awaited ratification by the blood of the Messiah. Until the Messiah had fulfilled His promise, these tokens, technically, were but "the evidence of things not seen." When Jesus died, it ratified the covenant.

As Paul puts it "For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth." (Heb. 9:16-17)

My grandfather wrote a will. We all knew of his will, and had opportunity to read it ourselves. However, until he died, it was worth little more than the paper it was written on. When he died, it put his will into full force of law.

The same is true of Jesus' death. When He died, it put His testament into force...that testament being the full message of redemption which had been given up to that time, and I believe we continue today to live under His will/testament which has been forever sealed and can no longer be changed.


You appear to be speaking from the abundance of ignorance and emotion. There is no point in what you have said here of merit.

THIS IS THE MAJOR ISSUE. Satan exults to have us believe that Christ's death released us from His law. It is my opinion that there is no part of God's law which should ever be converted into sin by obedience to it. In other words, if I wished to offer sacrifice today in order to truly grasp the significance of my sin and to find repentance, it would be no sin. However, the type has met antitype. The ceremony has been fulfilled. There is a distinction between the ceremony, and the law behind it. The law said "Obey." If one had sinned, they were required to wash themselves of it in blood. Since Jesus had not yet offered up the blood of their salvation, the sacrifices were their means of accepting Jesus' blood in faith. Such faith is no longer "faith." Faith is "the evidence of things not seen." But we have now seen it. There can be no faith, anymore, in this sense. We do not need to sacrifice animals. But we still need to follow the law, the same law, which caused those before us to offer the sacrifices in faith. The law has not, nor ever will be, abolished. The law was ratified on the cross as a part of the covenant or of the "testament" (to use Paul's term).

IF "YOU DON'T KEEP ALL THOSE LAWS..."
Why did Jesus die? Why should He die so that you would be "free to sin?" "Free to reject God's law?" JESUS DID NOT COME TO KEEP THE LAW IN OUR PLACE. He came to take its penalty in our place. His death never has, and never will, alter our obligation to the law. "If ye love me, keep my commandments."


Even if you do make such a list, I will show you how they are not different.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tom,

It seems you are very close to understanding what I'm trying to express. Perhaps I can make it even clearer for you in this post.

You are not fully comprehending the process of salvation. I admit, it is often difficult for me to grasp as well. Like you, I am not fully comprehending it either. But this is one of the points on which Ellen White has helped me the most. I'm thankful to have her writings to help me grasp how I can be saved--how the Scriptures apply in my case.

To summarize: God cannot save everyone. If He could, He would. Not everyone will be saved. God cannot save them, because it goes against His character to force them against their will.

By the same token, God cannot write His laws upon our hearts without our consent. When I say they did not write His laws upon their hearts, I could probably have said it better that they did not obey His instruction to learn and to keep His laws. Yes, if we obey God, it is God working in us to want and to do His will. But God does not force us.

To me, the "Old Covenant" and the "New Covenant" are both part of God's covenant with us. I believe they both apply to us today, and that they both have essentially the same message. The caveat here is how WE have followed our part of it. God has never broken His side of the covenant. But we have broken ours.

God's offer of a "new covenant" with us is identical in spirit to His offer of putting "a new heart" in us, of making us a "new creature" or a "new man." The "New Covenant" carries with it the same spirit as that of a "new earth." It is a renewal. It is a new start. A second chance. It is a noble offer of elevation to a new spiritual level.

The "old covenant" represents that which we have broken. It represents to us the fact that God has always promised His salvation to us, regardless of our background. It represents the enduring, unchanging nature of God and of His law.

Both covenants still apply. It is one covenant. The addition of the term "old" or "new" merely is a reference to our past infidelity to it, or to a renewed covenant relationship with God. The term "better promises" here applies. God promises to help us do better than we have done before when we have broken the covenant.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

If the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are the same thing, how can you write:



The word "both" here implies they are two different things. Also here:



But then you say, immediately following:



It can't be both ways! Either one entity is involved, in which case it makes no sense to speak of "both," or two entities are involved, in which case it makes no sense to say "It is one covenant."

Yes, it most certainly CAN be both ways!

The Father, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus are all GOD.

The "Old Testament" and the "New Testament" are BOTH Scripture.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Yes, the two covenants we speak of are given distinct names, because they represent distinct concepts. However, the names should not fool us into thinking their messages are entirely separable.

Commandments, laws, judgments, testimonies, precepts, statutes, ordinances, and more terms have all been applied to God's principles. They have distinct names. But their truths are entirely overlapping.

God's Ten Commandments are each identifiable separately. Yet to break one of them is to break them all (James 2:10-12).

To break either of the two covenants is to break God's Covenant with us.

Though the Covenant is the same, it has been issued multiple times, and with varying tokens and promises to encourage us to keep God's law.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

If they represent different concepts, then they are not the same thing. Before you were saying the same thing. In fact, in your previous post you said, "it is one covenant." Even in this one, you said it again, "Though the Covenant is the same." You can't say on the one hand, "Yes, the two covenants we speak of are given distinct names, because they represent distinct concepts." and say, on the other hand, "Though the covenant is the same."

Which is it? Two different concepts, or "the same."?

Hi GC,

Whether or not you use the term “penal atonement” you still adhere to the label if you believe in the doctrine. Penal atonement is simply saying that God has to punish sin through a violent death sentence. Since this would thwart God’s plan for creating man Jesus, a member of the God Head, agreed to become a man and take God’s punishment in our place so that those who believed in Him could be acquitted or as MM likes to say, “Legally pardoned!”



This statement epitomizes the penal atonement view!

scott

Hi GC,

One doesn’t have to say they do not accept the Apostles. All one has to do is to disagree with the position that the Apostles took on doctrine.

1) Paul says there are two covenants and you say there is one.
2) Paul says that the OC leads to death and you say it leads to life.
3) Paul says that the OC is nailed to the cross, no longer our schoolmaster, and obsolete ready to pass away and you say that it is the same as the everlasting covenant.
4) Paul says that the OC represents physical Israel and the NC represents Israel of the Spirit and you say that there is no difference in the covenants.

Need I go on?

The bottom line is that you don’t agree with Paul, but insist that he agrees with you if understood correctly. That could be seen as lip service.

Another thing that I see happening in this conversation is the creation of straw men that you can tear down. For instance you are emphatic about making sure that Paul didn’t teach that we are released from the law so that we can enjoy sinning.



Not one person on this forum has ever suggested that Paul’s words, in any way, give us a free ticket to sin. In fact the opposite is true. Paul teaches that as long as we are under the burden of law we can’t stop sinning, but once freed from the law we can finally see Jesus’ grace and enter His rest. Paul teaches that by concentrating on Jesus we will fall in love with Him and can finally experience victory over sin because love is our motive for obedience rather than fear or threats.

The bottom line is that the “penal atonement view” that pardons the sinner based on Christ receiving their punishment in their place is the view that led the Christian church into antinomianism. As long as “penal atonement” is taught there will be those who would love to lay their guilt on Jesus so that they can feel free to keep sinning.

I personally believe in the Christus Victor model of atonement where Christ defeats Satan, as a man, and takes back the earth and its inhabitants as His possession. In the process He vindicates God of all the false accusations and wins back the hearts of many to a loving trust relationship. This all happens as a result of God’s great demonstration of love at the cross.

scott