Amen to this! I remember in our discussions on penal substitution, the most difficult passages of Paul are used to "prove" this doctrine. On just about any subject, whether the divinity or Christ, or the atonement, or whatever, one can "find" texts from Paul to "prove" your position.

I also think the way you put this here is good. It's not that Paul did anything wrong, but people twist Paul to fit their mode of thought.

Obviously Paul had much in his favor, however, or God would not have had so much of the New Testament come from Paul. He was a brilliant and thoroughly converted follower of Christ.

I've been busy, and so have been "out of the loop" somewhat, so am catching up on this interesting thread. While I "Amened!" a comment earlier in this post, on this comment I feel constrained to point out I believe this point is highly unfair to Paul. The word "penalty" does not appear once in Scripture, hence it seems highly unfair to focus on Paul and criticize him for not using it.

This thought came to my mind as well. It could be that the problem is not that Paul was imprecise, but that we are just too spiritually dull to understand his profound thoughts.

Regarding #116598, GC, it looks like you're not understanding what the Old Covenant is. Paul was right! In Galatians he writes:



The Old Covenant "gendereth to bondage." It is done away with whenever one believes in Christ. Ellen White makes that point clear here:



Note the contrast. In the Old Covenant, the law is written upon tables of stone. In the New it's written upon the tables of the heart. In the Old, one goes about establishing one's own righteousness. In the New, one accepts the righteousness of Christ. The Old Covenant can't be done away with quick enough! We need the righteousness of Christ! Away with trying to establishing our righteousness!

It saddens me that there is so much confusion regarding the Covenants. Properly understood, Paul and EGW are in perfect harmony. Ellen White wrote:





So Waggoner's position is the "truth" and "clear" and "convincing." I agree! Waggoner has helped me tremendously in understanding the Covenants. Here's a gem from Waggoner on this subject:



Waggoner's point is brilliant! The Covenants are not matters of time, but of condition. Most people interpret Paul as dealing with the Covenants as matters of time, which is why they confuse what Paul is saying. But Waggoner has it right, and has given us the key! The Covenants are not matters of time, but of condition.

Tom,

Most Adventists fail of understanding God's covenant properly. The "New Covenant" is just the same as the "New Commandment" which Jesus gave...neither one is "new" as some people try to say. It is "new" in that it is reiterated, renewed, for us. The "New Covenant" was present in the Old Testament as well the New Testament. Whenever people broke the covenant, God was willing to make it new for them.



Here's what God instructed the ancient Israelites:



The two covenants are the same in content. They are different only in that the "Old Covenant" we broke. We needed a "better" one in the sense that we internalized it. That is represented in the "New Covenant" teaching. Notice what Mrs. White says about this here:



There is one other difference that we might point out in the covenants: The first covenant was represented with the blood of sacrifices, but when Jesus became the True Sacrifice for us, sealing the Abrahamic Covenant, it was called the "New Covenant." This is more a matter of semantics than anything else, as the covenant itself remains the same, and those animals sacrifices were the types which pointed to Christ.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The differences between the Covenants are made clear here:



The New Covenant involves the writing of the law in the heart. As the SOP puts it:



Here's the difference:

Old Covenant:We establish our own righteousness.
New Covenant:We accept the righteousness of Christ.

Instead of the law being written on tables of stone, it's written in the heart.

The key is what Waggoner pointed out, that the Covenants are not matters of time but of condition.

What happened at Sinai is that God offered the Israelites His Covenant, the New one, but rather than accept that, they initiated their own covenant, the Old one.

The following is from "The Glad Tidings". Since it's a long quote, I'll present it in regular text (instead of in a quote box)

"These Are the Two Covenants."

What are the two covenants?--The two women, Hagar and Sarah; for we read that Hagar is Mount Sinai, "which gendereth to bondage." That is, just as Hagar could not bring forth any other kind of children than slaves, so the law, even the law that God spoke from Sinai, can not beget freemen. It can do nothing but hold them in bondage. "The law worketh wrath:" "for by the law is the knowledge of sin." The same is true of the covenant from Sinai, for it consisted merely of the promise of the people to keep that law, and had, therefore, no more power to make them free than the law itself had,--no more power than they already had in their bondage. Nay, rather, it "gendered to bondage," since their making it was simply a promise to make themselves righteous by their own works, and man in himself is "without strength."

Consider the situation: The people were in the bondage of sin; they had no power to break their chains; but the speaking of the law made no change in their condition; it introduced no new feature. If a man is in prison for crime, you can not release him by reading the statutes to him. It was the law that put him there, and the reading of it to him only makes his captivity more painful.

"Then did not God Himself lead them into bondage?"--Not by any means; since He did not induce them to make that covenant at Sinai. Four hundred and thirty years before that time He had made a covenant with Abraham, which was sufficient for all purposes. That covenant was confirmed in Christ, and, therefore, was a covenant from above. See John 8:23. It promised righteousness as a free gift of God through faith, and it included all nations. All the miracles that God had wrought in delivering the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage were but demonstrations of His power to deliver them and us from the bondage of sin. Yes, the deliverance from Egypt was itself a demonstration not only of God's power, but also of His desire to lead them from the bondage of sin, that bondage in which the covenant from Sinai holds men, because Hagar, who is the covenant from Sinai, was an Egyptian. So when the people came to Sinai, God simply referred them to what He had already done, and then said, "Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine." Ex.19:5. To what covenant did He refer?--Evidently to the one already in existence, His covenant with Abraham. If they would simply keep God's covenant, that is, God's promise,--keep the faith,--they would be a peculiar treasure unto God, for God, as the possessor of all the earth, was able to do with them all that He had promised. The fact that they in their self-sufficiency rashly took the whole responsibility upon themselves, does not prove that God led them into making that covenant, but the contrary. He was leading them out of bondage, not into it, and the apostle plainly tells us that covenant from Sinai was nothing but bondage.

Further, if the children of Israel who came out of Egypt had but walked "in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised" (Rom.4:12), the law would never have been spoken from Sinai; "for the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith" (Rom.4:13). Faith justifies, makes righteous; if the people had had Abraham's faith, they would have had the righteousness that he had; and then there would have been no occasion for the entering of the law, which was "spoken because of transgression." The law would have been in their hearts, and they would not have needed to be awakened by its thunders to a sense of their condition. God never expected, and does not now expect, that any person can get righteousness by the law proclaimed from Sinai; and everything connected with Sinai shows it. Yet the law is truth, and must be kept. God delivered the people from Egypt, "that they might observe His statutes, and keep His laws." Ps.105:45. We do not get life by keeping the commandments, but God gives us life in order that we may keep them.

Tom,

You and I may disagree on this. I don't pay much attention to extra-prophetic sources. If you want to convince me on this issue, the Bible and EGW are sufficient, and nothing more.

I do not agree with your summation of what the covenants were. In my understanding, the covenants were God's law, and His promise that "this do and ye shall live." God has promised His blessings when we obey. That is the Covenant. And it is Salvation as the ultimate blessing.

As I pointed out before, Ellen White says both covenants had the same requirements.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

In other words, Tom, God is not our substitute in obedience. Jesus did not obey in our place, so that we do not have to. That is not what the new covenant is. Accepting Christ's righteousness means doing as He did--that is, surrendering our will to the Father and submitting to His authority by obedience to His law.

The Covenant still requires obedience to God's law as it always has. When we ask God to create in us a new heart, we renew our covenant with Him, and desire to obey Him more completely. This is the essence of the "New Covenant."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

If a prophetic source points to an extra-prophetic one (as you call it) and one doesn't pay attention to that, then one is not paying attention to the prophetic source either. Also EGW used the term "prophets" in reference to Jones and Waggoner, if that makes any difference. I don't see why it should. She said over and over again that God used them to send light to us and we should heed that light. It seems to me that should be enough.

Anyway, regardless of who said what about whom, if one simply looks at the arguments Waggoner presents, I'm constrained to agree with Ellen White's evaluation of them (which evaluation *is* prophetic) that it is "truth" and "clear" and "convincing."



I can't help but notice that your interpretation leads you to disagree with Paul and Ellen White, which I think should be seen as a warning sign that perhaps the view isn't correct. That you disagree with Paul, you've said yourself. It makes it challenging to demonstrate something is unScriptural if you're open to disagreeing with Scripture! I suppose I could try to show that Paul's view of the Covenants is correct by using some non-Pauline author, but, since Paul wrote far more on the subject than anyone else, that would be challenging. Also I don't know if it's OK to set some non-Pauline author aside as well.

Regarding Ellen White, as I pointed out, she endorsed Waggoner's view as "truth" and "clear" and "convincing." Here's another endorsement of hers on the subject:



Here she says that if Waggoner's position agreed with what she wrote in "Patriarchs and Prophets," then Waggoner had the truth. Shortly after then she identified Waggoner's position as the truth. Therefore it's not likely that Waggoner's position differs from hers, assuming we trust her ability to identify positions.

I am agreeing with Ellen White when she says both covenants had the same requirements, are you? I think you are the one in disagreement with her here. You are saying the covenants were different in their requirements. You try to tell me I am not accepting her writings, when in reality, it is the other way around.

Nor do I disagree with Paul. I disagree, perhaps, with your interpretation of Paul. In other words, I think you are the one disagreeing with Paul.

The quote you brought of Mrs. White's endorsement of Waggoner is rather vague, and I would feel on shaky ground to base my faith on it. First, she admits to not being fully apprised of Waggoner's position in saying "if that was Dr. Waggoner's position...." Secondly, she clearly states that she is giving her opinion here ("I believe"), and not a "thus saith the Lord." When she wrote her inspired books, she was not writing her opinions. However, the quote you brought here endorsing Waggoner was not from one of those books, though it did mention one of them. In other words, she is not saying "The Lord showed me Waggoner held the correct position relative to the Covenants." If she did, I would most certainly accept it.

Regarding the 1888 Message, for which Jones and Waggoner were largely responsible, and of which Mrs. White has also written much, Clifford Goldstein wrote the following, published in the Adventist Review:

Lest you misunderstand what he is saying, you can here read the full article.

However, the basic implication is that there is a lot of common ideas held about what the 1888 message was all about that are not what Ellen White perceived as the message of that time. From this, we might also conclude that not all of Waggoner's ideas matched hers. While she undoubtedly endorsed some, it does not mean she endorsed every word the man uttered, anymore than she endorsed everything that Uriah Smith wrote.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.