You honing in on the "two covenants" and wondering what I'm thinking about?

I'm distinguishing between Israel's covenant of works of Ex 19:6 and God's covenant with Abraham of grace through faith: rather than dispensational law first and grace after Calvary, these two covenants operate simultaneously and have done so since Cain got jealous of Able...

On the Covenant or test in Eden, that was a test of faith, not works - God never tests us on works, but on obedience exercised by grace through faith. Grace before the Fall was provision of all they needed to choose to live in harmony with God's will - material provisions and love itself - just like the gospel of Jesus is by grace, adding a certain necessity of redemption from sin and sinfulness! Hope this is what you agree with and knew of anyway.

The covenant of God with Christ to redeem man should Christ carry out his agreement to be the Messiah, an identity he added to his Sonship forever more, was a covenant for grace, and of grace, but not by grace...: the Son of God had to fulfill a task - complete certain works, but the human element of his new existence needed grace to exercise "the faith of Jesus". The Son of man survived the Devil's onslaught by grace, but he also had to do a work, so works were the key element of that covenant agreement: perform to obtain salvation on the Father's commitment.

That is a well known arrangement among men: do something for a reward, and that reward is guarranteed by the report of task done. You agree that this was the sacrifice agreed on before the foundation of the world in the heavenly council of Father and Son?

Thus the old covenant is trying to supplant the arrangement between God and his only begotten Son - a little foolhardy, in the extreme, of Israel, but the two covenants of that old one and the everlasting covenant believed by Abraham are for us to choose between. Yes, both the Son's covenant with his Father before the world was created and his covenant with Abraham last forever: salvation obtained and salvation experienced both last for eternity..., after all.

Now I hope that wasn't missing the point of your question?

I don't know. But would He?

Why would He do such a thing, Arnold? Or, why would you think He would do such a thing? For God to do such a thing would be unjust, wouldn't it?

Why? I still don't know.

Would it be unjust? Maybe. Maybe not. But then, God is not constrained by what I think. If He was, there would be hotdogs on the Tree of Life.

Based on your understanding of sin, is ignorance a safe haven from condemnation?

Ooops, wrong text, there!!

Meant to be Ex 19:5, being God's promise to Israel, and v.8, where Israel replaced his promise with one of their own..., which he couldn't talk them out of, with v.9...

If you mean willing ignorance, that would be tantamount to rejecting light, right? If you mean unwilling ignorance, that gets me back to the questions I was asking before. I don't understand why you're unsure about the questions I'm asking. It seems to me obvious that condemning someone for rejecting light when they had no culpability in so doing would be unjust, and, since God is not unjust, He wouldn't do such a thing.

I am not going to make any comments, but quote the Spirit of Prophecy:

"Those who have an opportunity to hear the truth and yet take no pains to hear or understand it, thinking that if they do not hear they will not be accountable, will be judged guilty before God the same as if they had heard and rejected. There will be no excuse for those who choose to go in error when they might understand what is truth. In His sufferings and death Jesus has made atonement for all sins of ignorance, but there is no provision made for willful blindness. {LDE 218.1}

We shall not be held accountable for the light that has not reached our perception, but for that which we have resisted and refused. A man could not apprehend the truth which had never been presented to him, and therefore could not be condemned for light he had never had." {LDE 218.2}

Here again I will not make any comments, yet these verses and there are others as well. This is found in Numbers:

15:27 And if any soul sin through ignorance, then he shall bring a she goat of the first year for a sin offering.
15:28 And the priest shall make an atonement for the soul that sinneth ignorantly, when he sinneth by ignorance before the LORD, to make an atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him.
15:29 Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, [both for] him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them.
15:30 But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
15:31 Because he hath despised the word of the LORD, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.

Last one from the Spirit of Prophecy:

"he thoughts and feelings of the mother will have a powerful influence upon the legacy she gives her child. If she allows her mind to dwell upon her own feelings, if she indulges in selfishness, if she is peevish and exacting, the disposition of her child will testify to the fact. Thus many have received as a birthright almost unconquerable tendencies to evil."--ST, Sept 13, 1910.

Here's my definition from post #113117:
I'm not talking about willing ignorance, where one neglects or ignores light that is available. I'm talking about God not making any light available.


So you're saying that had God kept completely quiet, and left us in total darkness, then none of us would be condemned because to condemn under those circumstances would be unjust. Right?