talk about different ways of reading something!!

gc, you are reading her "i believe" as an opinion when it seems quite clear to others that she is saying it is something she holds as a belief, a sanctified belief at that.

i feel this is going to make you angry and i am sorry about that, but the problem seems to be more how you are reading something than what it is really saying.

then on top of that you seem to hold this person as an authority even higher than paul and ellen white.
so the question is, have you studied what ellen white said, studied jones and waggoner in light of her writings, and studied paul to see if they all match up?

following ernie is not the only snare the enemy has set up. following any human other than what we have been given is dangerous.

we were given paul by God Himself. we were given ellen white by God Himself. we were given j and w, also by God. and while i agree that they need to be read in the light of the bible/sop, we need to be very careful that we are not setting our faulty, fallible, understanding above what is clearly from God.

if our understanding does not match what they are saying our understanding is what is in error, not the bible/sop.

at heart of the issue seems to be that you believe we are capable, on our own, of even understanding what all the law entails and then obeying it. if my understanding of what you are saying is faulty please clarify.

Right, GC, the two covenants and Goldstein's "1888 message" which he objects to...

There are two meanings to old covenant: there's the Sinai declaration, "All that the Lord has said, we will do." That's the wrong covenant, of course. The sacrificial system is the proper old covenant..., looking to its fulfilment in Calvary and the full revelation of God's justice and mercy and better promise, etc: yes, spiritual rebirth with the law written on our hearts by receiving the mind of Christ in the experience of justification is both proper old covenant and new covenant, as well. The concurrent old and new covenants are the wrong and right covenants!

On Goldstein, he fails to resort to W & J's own writings, better at stating the 1888 message than EGW, as she herself said!! His article came out a few years after the Primacy of the Gospel Comm. report in the Review. The official analysis behind that report equally totally failed to examine W & J's own writings!!

That Committee was set up by Elder Folkenberg, in the mid-90s, under the GC AdCom (rather than ExCom), because he personally endorses what Elder Jack Sequeira teaches, and Folkenberg wanted to discern the accuracy of the 1888 Committee compared to the so-called "historic Adventists": his staff had taken 'readings' and found both of these fervent Adventist groups are influential in the NAD but the former producing a fire a loyalty to the church organisation among its readers with the latter producing, rather, general cynicism of their readers toward the same. The modern interpretation of historical writings and events making the two groups of readers react accordingly.

The "1888 Committee" so-called - Goldstein's "proponents" of the "1888 message" - who are actually the 1888 Message Study Committee - have merely published their collective understanding of reading J&W, and asking anybody else whether this can be true. When the leaders themselves take time to have a look, those leaders decide by majority among themselves that they won't look at J&W's own writings...: thus that report, a majority decision - again - of the panel of examiners as it was, is grossly naive, since it only looked at what was said about J&W and not what J&W said...!! A minority of that panel liked what they heard, and another minority just didn't know what to make of it - they coalesced with the third minority who didn't like what they heard: what a shambles! The full report is here posted here http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/Independent%20Ministries/PrimacyoftheGospel.htm

For a list of Bible, SOP and J&W quotes on each point of teaching - to put Goldstein in his place! try this...
http://www.gospel-herald.com/10truths/ten_truths.htm

Oh, the condition for salvation of perfect obedience to God is uncontested, but that condition involves both our qualification for heaven and the investigative judgement by Christ's imputed righteousness and our fitting for heaven by the investigative judgement by Christ's imparted righteousness, fulfilling Rev 19:8.

Rev 19:7 reads in the Greek (whichever manuscript stream you look at!): "...for the wedding of the Lamb came." This means that v.8 and that whole beginning of Rev 19 refers to the close of probation from other texts involving God's people on earth constituting the wedding dress of the Lamb's bride with their Christlike character traits: the close of probation is thus the wedding of the Lamb!

This interpretation is endorsed by Dwight Nelson at least, and I think both Richard Davidson - head of OT at the Seminary, and Jon Paulien - former head of NT at the Seminary, now Dean of Religion at Loma Linda (trying to bring them back from their liberal leanings, perhaps!) - among others...

The primacy of the Gospel group that filed their report did so in not the best of circumstances. A series of meetings had been going on for quite some time, and then a meeting was held with a secret agenda, to vote on this report, at a time when members who were in favor of what the 1888 MSC was sharing weren't present. I know of a member who was very upset that this happened, and said that, had he been present, he would have fought against it happening. It was a an episode which certainly doesn't inspire faith in those who took part in it.

Here's what Ellen White wrote in Patriarchs and Prophets.



Note this is very similar to what Waggoner wrote (which I quoted earlier). She contrasts the Old Covenant with the New: "Instead of going about to establish our own righteousness we accept the righteousness of Christ."

This is the difference between the two covenants in a nutshell. In one covenant, the old, one tries to establish one's own righteousness. In the other covenant, the new, one accepts the righteousness of Christ.

This is stated in such a simple way and easily understandable way, I don't know what it leaves to argue about.

Waggoner makes precisely the same argument she did. Ellen White says if Waggoner was teaching the same thing she taught in Patriarchs and Prophets, it was the truth. Shortly after this, she was it was the truth. What are we to conclude, if not that Waggoner was teaching the same thing she was in Patriarchs and Prophets? Indeed, logic doesn't allow for any other conclusion than this, does it?

Also one can see for oneself that they was teaching the same thing simply by reading what they wrote. I've quoted at length from both Ellen White and E. J. Waggoner, and one can readily see that they're making the same argument.

Regarding Paul, I quoted Gal. 4 where he says that the Old Covenant "gendereth to bondage." Now if the Old Covenant is simply the law (i.e. the 10 Commandments), then wouldn't that lead us to the conclusion that the 10 Commandments "gendereth to bondage"?

We also have the following statement of Paul's:



Now if the Old Covenant is the 10 Commandments, then how can it be said to be decaying and waxing old, and ready to vanish away?




If she writes:
a.If Waggoner agrees with what I wrote in Patriarchs and Prophets, then he has the truth.
b.Waggoner has the truth.
c.Waggoner's position on the Covenants is clear and convincing.
d.You are wasting your investigative efforts in trying to product a position on the Covenants different than Waggoner's

and you disagree with these statements, then clearly you are disagreeing with her.

I believe that Ellen White, and Waggoner, and Paul are all in agreement, and argument which follows logically from what Jeremiah wrote in Jeremiah 31:31-34.

Excellent question! This is exactly why I see Paul's writings as having been largely misunderstood on this point.

I believe the Old Covenant does include the Ten Commandments. What does "covenant" mean? It is a promise, an agreement, a contract, or perhaps we might even use the word "treaty." Who makes the Covenant? Two parties: God is the author of the covenant, and we accept it and promise to follow it.

When Paul speaks of the first covenant having been flawed, what was flawed? the law? No! God? No! It was us. We broke the treaty. We failed to fulfill the requirements we had covenanted to. Therefore, we had to make a new treaty with God, having broken the first one.

The new one had the same requirements as the former in what pertains to the keeping of the law. The difference is that we no longer need to sacrifice according to the sacrificial system, as Christ has fulfilled this.



Paul has here spelled out the flaw in the first covenant clearly. The flaw was us, not the law, not God, not the conditions of the covenant. And Ellen White tells us that the conditions of the covenant remain the same in the "New Covenant" as in the "Old Covenant" -- perfect obedience. She is right. God's law can never hope to have any other standard level of compliance than "perfect obedience."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Correction, GC! "Covenant" is a promise that is believed: it is not a contract, agreement or treaty, which are all the wrong structure. Nor do we promise to obey or do anything else!

Abraham believed God's promise, and we do nothing else, either! The law is fulfilled in Christ's life and recognises his death for our sins as the justice due us, but it is our belief in God's promise thus fulfilled in Christ which empowers us to have the righteous requirements of the law fulfilled in us.

A contract did happen between God and his only begotten Son, before the foundation of this world, that the Father would save this world should Christ fulfill the everlasting covenant to Abraham, etc. Christ's gospel history made that contract, since he told Mary Magdalene that he had yet to ascend to his Father: on reporting back that he'd done what was asked of him, the contract of salvation was made with his Father. The performance making the contract culminated in his death, but that was a contract - our belief in Christ constitutes no contract!

For these reasons and more beside we cannot promise anything: that hymn is in need of editing to: "Oh Jesus I have chosen to serve thee to the end." We are able to choose, but not to take on obligations: we choose to obey, but we may not promise.

GC, it was the agreement that was faulty. The people never should have initiated such an agreement in the first place. Instead of making promises to God, they should have simply believed the promises that God made to them.

God promised to write the law in their heart, but, in unbelief, they rejected that promise and made their own foolish promises to Him.



The underlined portion highlights their problem. Rather than accept the righteousness of Christ (this is what God had promised them; this is the New Covenant) they embarked upon their own Covenant, whereupon they sought to establish their own righteousness. This was never God's intent. God always wanted them to accept the righteousness of Christ.

You didn't respond to my point here:



You see the logic here, right?


Tom

Colin,

When you entered the "Marriage Covenant" that was not a contract? Not a commitment? only a "belief?"

Your picture here is not my picture. Far from it. God has given us the privilege of entering into a covenant relationship with Him, which is symbolically parallel to a marriage. He is the bridegroom, and we are the bride. The contract is binding--for life.

Abraham did more than believe. He acted. "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God." (James 2:21-23, KJV)

In other words, belief = faith in action = obedience.

God tells us that we can make promises to Him. There are references to how this should be done, or not done, and there are records to show how it was done.


Why, Colin, would God give rules for making promises with Him if we should never make Him a promise? Why would He not rather have said "Do not swear an oath to the LORD, neither vow any vow unto him" (my quote, not in the Bible)?

Indeed, we can make promises to God, and God is happy when we do so and keep our promise.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tom,

You and Colin basically stated the same thing. So please consider my response to him as responding also to the first part of your post.

As for the latter part, I fail to see how Ellen White made those four points, so I guess I'm not quite understanding the logic there.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.