|
Forums118
Topics9,234
Posts196,242
Members1,327
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
5 registered members (Karen Y, dedication, Daryl, 2 invisible),
2,402
guests, and 15
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: The Old Covenant and Its Law—Only for Israel?
[Re: teresaq]
#117392
08/10/09 02:34 PM
08/10/09 02:34 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
M: Do you agree that the following passages say, among other things, that capital punishment "[illustrated and applied] the principles of the Ten Commandments", that it is "only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified"?
T: No. What? That’s precisely what she said. Why do you exclude capital punishment? It was an integral part of the “judgments and laws” which were “only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified". Moses was commanded to write, as God should bid him, judgments and laws giving minute instruction as to what was required. These directions relating to the duty of the people to God, to one another, and to the stranger were only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified and given in a specific manner, that none need err. They were designed to guard the sacredness of the ten precepts engraved on the tables of stone. {PP 364.1} He then came still closer to his people, and would not leave them, who were so readily led astray, with merely the ten precepts of the decalogue. He required Moses to write as he should bid him, judgments and laws, giving minute directions in regard to what he required them to perform, and thereby guarded the ten precepts which he had engraved upon the tables of stone. These specific directions and requirements were given to draw erring man to the obedience of the moral law which he is so prone to transgress. {3SG 299.1} As the Bible presents two laws, one changeless and eternal, the other provisional and temporary, so there are two covenants. {PP 370.2} mm, in reflecting on these statements and the issues, it seems to me that God had no reason to give the "judgments and laws" to adam and eve, nor will they be applicable in the new earth. He also hadnt given them before abraham, nor after, so it seems the only reason God gave them, based on the pp, is because of the mental state of the israelites at delivery from the egyptians. so what ellen white meant by "amplified" seems to be explained by her other comments. The Hebrews had expected to obtain their freedom without any special trial of their faith or any real suffering or hardship. But they were not yet prepared for deliverance. They had little faith in God, and were unwilling patiently to endure their afflictions until He should see fit to work for them. Many were content to remain in bondage rather than meet the difficulties attending removal to a strange land; and the habits of some had become so much like those of the Egyptians that they preferred to dwell in Egypt. ..Beholding His justice, His power, and His love, they would choose to leave Egypt and give themselves to His service. The task of Moses would have been much less difficult had not many of the Israelites become so corrupted that they were unwilling to leave Egypt. {PP 260.2} The minds of the people, blinded and debased by slavery and heathenism, were not prepared to appreciate fully the far-reaching principles of God's ten precepts. That the obligations of the Decalogue might be more fully understood and enforced, additional precepts were given, illustrating and applying the principles of the Ten Commandments. .... {PP 310.1} would that make sense? [/quote] Listen as Ellen White explains it: The law of God, spoken in awful grandeur from Sinai, is the utterance of condemnation to the sinner. It is the province of the law to condemn, but there is in it no power to pardon or to redeem. It is ordained to life; those who walk in harmony with its precepts will receive the reward of obedience. But it brings bondage and death to those who remain under its condemnation. {1SM 236.3}
Christ died because there was no other hope for the transgressor. He might try to keep God's law in the future; but the debt which he had incurred in the past remained, and the law must condemn him to death. Christ came to pay that debt for the sinner which it was impossible for him to pay for himself. Thus, through the atoning sacrifice of Christ, sinful man was granted another trial. {FW 30.1} Condemnation and death are integral aspects of the law. The capital punishment aspect of the "judgment and laws" were "only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified".
|
|
|
Re: The Old Covenant and Its Law—Only for Israel?
[Re: Tom]
#117393
08/10/09 02:41 PM
08/10/09 02:41 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
M: However, everything else about the OC (i.e. everything God commanded the COI to do) still applies today in principle if not in particular. I suspect you agree with this.
T: If you're saying:
1.God instructed the COI to do certain things.
2.If you strip away all the things which don't have to do with the 10 Commandments.
3.Then, of what's left, the same instructions apply to us, in principle.
Then I agree, as all that's left are the principles of the 10 Commandments, which, of course, apply to us.
M:What do you think must be stripped away? Are you referring to any one of the “judgments and laws” that were "only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified"? Or, are you referring only to the “ritual laws”? There are a lot of things which were pertaining to the Israelites, such as polygamy, divorce, slavery, to name a few. I wouldn't call these "ritual laws," would you. Yet they don't apply to us, right? God's not in favor of divorce, slavery or polygamy, is He? No, they're not "rituals laws". To say God is not in favor of divorce, slavery, and polygamy begs the question - Why did He give the COI laws and judgments regulating such practices? Why didn't He prohibit them? Is it possible there are underlining principles that still apply today?
|
|
|
Re: The Old Covenant and Its Law—Only for Israel?
[Re: Tom]
#117395
08/10/09 03:05 PM
08/10/09 03:05 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
M: So far you have said the OC was bad because it involved the COI promising to obey and observe everything God required of them without fully understanding their need and dependence on Him to keep their promise. I agree. I’ve been saying the same thing all along. Are you aware of the fact that I’m in agreement with you on this one point?
T: IMO, you're not really in agreement with me. You wrote, "In essence, the OC is the NC amplified." I completely disagree with this, for the reasons I explained. The fact that you could write such a think demonstrates that you don't agree with what I'm saying. Are you aware of the fact that I’m in agreement with you on this ONE point? M: Yes, in one sense the conditions of OC caused a kind of bondage. Having to obey and observe some of those rites and rituals was terribly inconvenient. It was a major relief not to have to observe them after Jesus died and ascended to heaven
T: MM, this has absolutely nothing to do with the bondage of the OC!
M: Are you saying having to obey and observe all those rites and rituals was not a kind of bondage that “was against us, which was contrary to us”, and that it is not a major relief not to have to do it now?
T: MM, God gave these things to the COI. How could they have been against them? When you speak of the rites and rituals, are you speaking of the Ceremonial law? Sin is bondage. That's what "was against us, which was contrary to us." It's a major relief not to have to sin. “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.” Ellen White interpreted this passage in the following way: The veil is rent, the partition walls broken down, the handwriting of ordinances cancelled. {SD 228.3}
The ceremonial system was made up of symbols pointing to Christ, to His sacrifice and His priesthood. This ritual law, with its sacrifices and ordinances, was to be performed by the Hebrews until type met antitype in the death of Christ, the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. Then all the sacrificial offerings were to cease. It is this law that Christ "took . . . out of the way, nailing it to His cross." Colossians 2:14. {PP 365.1} Again, none of the laws given to the COI at Sinai would have been necessary had they lived in harmony with the NC. The only reason Jesus gave them the “ritual laws” was because they needed something that would remind them to love and obey God. But it was a huge burden, a huge inconvenience to maintain the OC version of the ceremonial system. The NC version was so much more streamline and convenient.
|
|
|
Re: The Old Covenant and Its Law—Only for Israel?
[Re: Tom]
#117397
08/10/09 03:49 PM
08/10/09 03:49 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
T: If you're saying that you believe that Jesus Christ, in His humanity, revealed all the man can know of God, then we are in agreement. You're saying you agree with this?
M: I believe Jesus revealed everything we need to know about God. I believe He did it in two ways – 1) Through His actions, and 2) Through His teachings.
Are you saying you agree with this?
T: Since the SOP tells us that Christ lived what He taught, I believe it's sufficient to say that Christ revealed God's character fully and completely by His life. I believe Jesus revealed everything we need to know about God. I believe He did it in two ways – 1) Through His actions, and 2) Through His teachings. Are you saying you disagree with this? M: Do you agree that the following passages say, among other things, that capital punishment "[illustrated and applied] the principles of the Ten Commandments", that it is "only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified"?
T: No.
M: What? That’s precisely what she said. Why do you exclude capital punishment? It was an integral part of the “judgments and laws” which were “only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified".
T: I think you're misreading what she wrote, and that you are confusing the principles of the Ten Commandments with judgments related to breaking certain laws. IMO, it shouldn't be difficult to see that principles related to commandments are not the same thing as judgments related to breaking them. I addressed this point in my last post to Teresa. M: Are you saying 1) the author didn’t specifically address this issue, and that 2) you are expecting me to know how you apply the principles to it? If so, then you are expecting way too much of me. Please state your position clearly and concisely. Thank you. BTW, you have never done this, that is, you have never plainly stated why you think Jesus ordered Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death.
T: I'm saying 2). I'm sorry I'm expecting too much of you. I have stated my position. I'm sorry you haven't understood what I've said. I think we've spent enough time on this. Why not do what I've suggested, which is to stay with a study of the cross, of the final judgment, and with the character and life of Jesus Christ which fully revealed God? I would prefer it if you would plainly state your position. I have absolutely no idea what you believe. Why do you think Jesus ordered Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death? M: Demonstrating His power in the way He did and for the reasons He did was not a show of force or violence. Do you agree?
How could I not? The whole time I've been advocated that God did not use force or violence to get His way, as your view suggests. The fact that you don't label it "force" or "violence" doesn't change what you actually believe, which is that God used what in ordinary conversation would be labeled by an ordinary person as "force" and "violence." You omitted the quotes I posted. Here’s my original post: God demonstrated His power. “Every manifestation of creative power is an expression of infinite love.” {PP 32} “These judgments are sent that those who lightly regard God's law and trample upon His authority may be led to tremble before His power and to confess His just sovereignty. {PP 109} “Thus in the midst of judgment the mercy of God was displayed, the people were tested, and it was shown how many had been led to fear God by the manifestation of His power. {PP 269} The following two passages explain why God chose to demonstration His power through the plagues of Egypt:
The Hebrews had expected to obtain their freedom without any special trial of their faith or any real suffering or hardship. But they were not yet prepared for deliverance. They had little faith in God, and were unwilling patiently to endure their afflictions until He should see fit to work for them. Many were content to remain in bondage rather than meet the difficulties attending removal to a strange land; and the habits of some had become so much like those of the Egyptians that they preferred to dwell in Egypt. Therefore the Lord did not deliver them by the first manifestation of His power before Pharaoh. He overruled events more fully to develop the tyrannical spirit of the Egyptian king and also to reveal Himself to His people. Beholding His justice, His power, and His love, they would choose to leave Egypt and give themselves to His service. The task of Moses would have been much less difficult had not many of the Israelites become so corrupted that they were unwilling to leave Egypt. {PP 260.2}
He was informed that the monarch would not yield until God should visit judgments upon Egypt and bring out Israel by the signal manifestation of His power. Before the infliction of each plague, Moses was to describe its nature and effects, that the king might save himself from it if he chose. Every punishment rejected would be followed by one more severe, until his proud heart would be humbled, and he would acknowledge the Maker of heaven and earth as the true and living God. The Lord would give the Egyptians an opportunity to see how vain was the wisdom of their mighty men, how feeble the power of their gods, when opposed to the commands of Jehovah. He would punish the people of Egypt for their idolatry and silence their boasting of the blessings received from their senseless deities. God would glorify His own name, that other nations might hear of His power and tremble at His mighty acts, and that His people might be led to turn from their idolatry and render Him pure worship. {PP 263.1}
Demonstrating His power in the way He did and for the reasons He did was not a show of force or violence. Do you agree? God demonstrated His power. “Every manifestation of creative power is an expression of infinite love.” {PP 32} “These judgments are sent that those who lightly regard God's law and trample upon His authority may be led to tremble before His power and to confess His just sovereignty. {PP 109} “Thus in the midst of judgment the mercy of God was displayed, the people were tested, and it was shown how many had been led to fear God by the manifestation of His power. {PP 269} The following two passages explain why God chose to demonstration His power through the plagues of Egypt: There is nothing forceful or violent about it. M: However, He did teach it, that it He would in future resort to it. His confirmation that Jews and Jerusalem would alike perish is an example. Also, His doctrine regarding “weeping and gnashing of teeth” speak to it.
T: This is again FOTAP, I believe. It's not a principle that Christ "resorts" to, but, as the SOP puts it, what happens is people cause God's protection to be removed. I really have no idea what overall point you're trying to make here, however.
M: Jesus employed the “withdraw and permit” principle throughout the OT.
T: I should just put something where I can copy and paste it, since you keep using this language. At any rate, I either disagree with your idea here, or think the language is ill-chosen, for reasons I've explained on several occasions. I think what the SOP said, that people caused God to withdraw His protection, is a better way of putting it, being more accurate than what you are saying, clearly indicating upon whom the blame/responsibility lies. Jesus employed the “withdraw and permit” method of allowing death and destruction is a valid use of the English language. He has employed 5 different methods of causing, commanding, or permitting death and destruction. Yes, circumstances force Him to employ one or the other method. He would prefer it if people would simply love and obey Him. M: For example, the antediluvians did not make water flood the earth and kill everyone.
T: They did indirectly by causing God wot withdraw His protection.
M: Nor did the sodomites make fire burn everyone alive.
T: They caused God to withdraw His protection.
M: True, it was on account of their filling up their cup of woe and wrath that Jesus was forced to withdraw His protection and permit death and destruction to happen.
T: Right! Why not just say this? You’re not understanding my point. The point is – God must do something to cause or permit death and destruction. Sinners did not withdraw their protection and permit the forces of nature to cause death and destruction. Another point to consider. The forcers of nature are subject to God. They can do nothing without Him, not even cause death and destruction. If God let go, the laws of nature would simply stand still and do nothing. In order for them to cause death and destruction, God must employ them accordingly. M: God will withdraw His protection and permit the radiant light of His presence to cause sinners pain and suffering in duration and in proportion to their sinfulness. He will also rain down fire from above and raise up fire from below. In this environment they will suffer and die.
T: Before you said that God works to prevent sin from having destructive consequences upon those who practice it, consequences deriving from the conscience being violated. The SOP tells us if we had to bear the enormity of our guilt, it would crush us. Christ bears our guilt, and when He ceases to do so for those who have rejected Him, it crushes them. I have no idea why you think God would have to add some arbitrary punishment on top of the death and destruction which you yourself said that sin causes. Sinners eventually harden their hearts beyond the point of being able to feel shame and guilt. M: Are you suggesting resurrected sinners will suffer and die at the end of time because God is kind to them?
T: I wasn't suggesting this, but I'm not opposed to the idea. That is, one could say this, and it would be true. The wicked will suffer and die at the end of time because of God's kindness to them. Amazing, isn't it? What is so kind about giving them over to the consequences of their choices? What is so kind about exposing them to His unveiled brightness and glory? What is so kind about raining down fire from above and raising up fire from below? The word justice comes to mind – not kindness. M: Jesus came the first time to demonstrate to us how to live in harmony with the will of God. He did not come to punish us for despising and rejecting Him. However, He has promised that the second time He comes He will punish those who despise and reject Him.
T: According to the SOP, the whole purpose of Christ's mission on earth was "the revelation of God." She didn't limit His mission the way you are. The "revelation of God" includes everything about Him, not just the "nicey-nice" side (as teresa put it).
M: Are you disagreeing with the idea the OT envisioned two different advents with two different sets of goals? Please refer to the many quotations I posted above.
T: I think the character of the One acting in both comings is the same, and was fully revealed by Jesus Christ, whose "whole purpose" was the "revelation of God." I don't think Christ only revealed one side of God, the kinder/gentler side, and that His other side, the vindictive/violent side will be revealed later. If both sets of prophecies describing both advents are identical, how, then, could the Jews misapply them? Please refer to the many quotations I posted above (the ones you omitted). Do you see how they describe two radically different advents?
|
|
|
Re: The Old Covenant and Its Law—Only for Israel?
[Re: Mountain Man]
#117406
08/10/09 05:09 PM
08/10/09 05:09 PM
|
SDA
Active Member 2024
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,984
CA, USA
|
|
M: Do you agree that the following passages say, among other things, that capital punishment "[illustrated and applied] the principles of the Ten Commandments", that it is "only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified"?
T: No. What? That’s precisely what she said. Why do you exclude capital punishment? It was an integral part of the “judgments and laws” which were “only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified". Moses was commanded to write, as God should bid him, judgments and laws giving minute instruction as to what was required. These directions relating to the duty of the people to God, to one another, and to the stranger were only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified and given in a specific manner, that none need err. They were designed to guard the sacredness of the ten precepts engraved on the tables of stone. {PP 364.1} He then came still closer to his people, and would not leave them, who were so readily led astray, with merely the ten precepts of the decalogue. He required Moses to write as he should bid him, judgments and laws, giving minute directions in regard to what he required them to perform, and thereby guarded the ten precepts which he had engraved upon the tables of stone. These specific directions and requirements were given to draw erring man to the obedience of the moral law which he is so prone to transgress. {3SG 299.1} As the Bible presents two laws, one changeless and eternal, the other provisional and temporary, so there are two covenants. {PP 370.2} mm, in reflecting on these statements and the issues, it seems to me that God had no reason to give the "judgments and laws" to adam and eve, nor will they be applicable in the new earth. He also hadnt given them before abraham, nor after, so it seems the only reason God gave them, based on the pp, is because of the mental state of the israelites at delivery from the egyptians. so what ellen white meant by "amplified" seems to be explained by her other comments. The Hebrews had expected to obtain their freedom without any special trial of their faith or any real suffering or hardship. But they were not yet prepared for deliverance. They had little faith in God, and were unwilling patiently to endure their afflictions until He should see fit to work for them. Many were content to remain in bondage rather than meet the difficulties attending removal to a strange land; and the habits of some had become so much like those of the Egyptians that they preferred to dwell in Egypt. ..Beholding His justice, His power, and His love, they would choose to leave Egypt and give themselves to His service. The task of Moses would have been much less difficult had not many of the Israelites become so corrupted that they were unwilling to leave Egypt. {PP 260.2} The minds of the people, blinded and debased by slavery and heathenism, were not prepared to appreciate fully the far-reaching principles of God's ten precepts. That the obligations of the Decalogue might be more fully understood and enforced, additional precepts were given, illustrating and applying the principles of the Ten Commandments. .... {PP 310.1} would that make sense? Listen as Ellen White explains it: The law of God, spoken in awful grandeur from Sinai, is the utterance of condemnation to the sinner. It is the province of the law to condemn, but there is in it no power to pardon or to redeem. It is ordained to life; those who walk in harmony with its precepts will receive the reward of obedience. But it brings bondage and death to those who remain under its condemnation. {1SM 236.3}
Christ died because there was no other hope for the transgressor. He might try to keep God's law in the future; but the debt which he had incurred in the past remained, and the law must condemn him to death. Christ came to pay that debt for the sinner which it was impossible for him to pay for himself. Thus, through the atoning sacrifice of Christ, sinful man was granted another trial. {FW 30.1} Condemnation and death are integral aspects of the law. The capital punishment aspect of the "judgment and laws" were "only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified". [/quote] ok, mm. that is how you understand it. no problem. 
Psa 64:5 ...an evil matter: they commune of laying snares privily; they say, Who shall see them?
Psa 7:14 Behold, he travaileth with iniquity, and hath conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood. 15 He made a pit, and digged it, and is fallen into the ditch which he made. 16 His mischief (and his violent dealing) shall return upon his own head.
Psa 7:17 I will praise the LORD according to his righteousness: and will sing praise to the name of the LORD most high.
|
|
|
Re: The Old Covenant and Its Law—Only for Israel?
[Re: teresaq]
#117410
08/10/09 06:17 PM
08/10/09 06:17 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
M:What do you think must be stripped away? Are you referring to any one of the “judgments and laws” that were "only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified"? Or, are you referring only to the “ritual laws”? T:There are a lot of things which were pertaining to the Israelites, such as polygamy, divorce, slavery, to name a few. I wouldn't call these "ritual laws," would you. Yet they don't apply to us, right? God's not in favor of divorce, slavery or polygamy, is He? M:No, they're not "rituals laws". To say God is not in favor of divorce, slavery, and polygamy begs the question - Why did He give the COI laws and judgments regulating such practices?[/quote] Because of the hardness of their hearts, as Jesus Christ explained. Why didn't He prohibit them? Is it possible there are underlining principles that still apply today? Sure, it's possible that there are some underlying principles that would apply. That's a far cry from saying that the law applies to us, however. For example, we're not to divorce our wives for any reason we choose, as in the law of Moses.
Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
|
|
|
Re: The Old Covenant and Its Law—Only for Israel?
[Re: Tom]
#117411
08/10/09 07:05 PM
08/10/09 07:05 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
M: So far you have said the OC was bad because it involved the COI promising to obey and observe everything God required of them without fully understanding their need and dependence on Him to keep their promise. I agree. I’ve been saying the same thing all along. Are you aware of the fact that I’m in agreement with you on this one point?
T: IMO, you're not really in agreement with me. You wrote, "In essence, the OC is the NC amplified." I completely disagree with this, for the reasons I explained. The fact that you could write such a think demonstrates that you don't agree with what I'm saying.
M:Are you aware of the fact that I’m in agreement with you on this ONE point? I think you *think* you're in agreement with me, but you're not. You wrote So far you have said the OC was bad because it involved the COI promising to obey and observe everything God required of them without fully understanding their need and dependence on Him to keep their promise. But this isn't what I've been saying. That's why you think we're in agreement on this point, when we're not. What I've been saying is more along the lines that the OC *consists* of these things, not "involves" them. T: MM, God gave these things to the COI. How could they have been against them? When you speak of the rites and rituals, are you speaking of the Ceremonial law? Sin is bondage. That's what "was against us, which was contrary to us." It's a major relief not to have to sin.
M:“Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.” Ellen White interpreted this passage in the following way: We've got a whole thread discussing Col 2:14. You can bump that if you want to discuss this verse. M:Again, none of the laws given to the COI at Sinai would have been necessary had they lived in harmony with the NC. This is correct. M:The only reason Jesus gave them the “ritual laws” was because they needed something that would remind them to love and obey God. Right. But it was a huge burden, a huge inconvenience to maintain the OC version of the ceremonial system. The NC version was so much more streamline and convenient. So you think God gave them a "huge burden"? I disagree. I think you also think God gave them something which led them into bondage, and I also disagree with that. Writing "the NC version," is viewing the covenants as similar things, rather than fundamentally different. This is a large part of our disagreement, I think. Basically the OC was a bad thing, being founded on unbelief, whereas the NC is a good thing, founded on the promises of God. Also I don't think you've latched onto the following principle: Note the statement which the apostle makes when speaking of the two women, Hagar and Sarah: "These are the two covenants." So then the two covenants existed in every essential particular in the days of Abraham. Even so they do to-day; for the Scripture says now as well as then, "Cast out the bondwoman and her son." We see then that the two covenants are not matters of time, but of condition.Let no one flatter himself that he can not be under the old covenant, because the time for that is passed. (The Glad Tidings) Ellen White said that Waggoner's view was clear and convincing, and that he had been given a special gift whereby he could teach righteousness by faith better than she could. I think it would be beneficial to look at what Waggoner wrote. The "Glad Tidings," chapters 3 and 4 are a good place to look, as well as "The Gospel in Galatians." These are both online.
Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
|
|
|
Re: The Old Covenant and Its Law—Only for Israel?
[Re: Tom]
#117428
08/10/09 09:15 PM
08/10/09 09:15 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
M:I believe Jesus revealed everything we need to know about God. I believe He did it in two ways – 1) Through His actions, and 2) Through His teachings.
Are you saying you disagree with this? What I said was that according to the SOP, Jesus lived what He taught. Therefore Christ's life was sufficient to reveal God. If you intend to say Jesus Christ revealed God in "two different ways" so that it wouldn't be true that what Christ taught, He lived, then I disagree. I would prefer it if you would plainly state your position. I have absolutely no idea what you believe. Why do you think Jesus ordered Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death?
I'm sure if you have "absolutely no idea" what I believe, after all I've written, and quoted from others, my saying one more thing wouldn't help. There is nothing forceful or violent about it. You believe that God escalated the damage of the plagues until it got to the point to where He commissioned holy angels to kill. To claim these is nothing "forceful" or "violent" about your view is to do violence to the words "forceful" and "violent." Jesus employed the “withdraw and permit” method of allowing death and destruction is a valid use of the English language. It's an inferior use to the SOP's, and doesn't represent my view accurately. If you wish to use it to represent *your* view, that's fine. He has employed 5 different methods of causing, commanding, or permitting death and destruction. Which is force and violence. Yes, circumstances force Him to employ one or the other method. He would prefer it if people would simply love and obey Him. This view of God has nothing to do with Jesus Christ's life. Never did He teach, "If you don't do what I say, I'll destroy you. There are 5 ways I use to do this. I'd prefer you loved and obey Me, but if you don't, I'll use one of these 5 methods to destroy you." MM, don't you see the lack of logic to "Love me, or I'll destroy you?" I mean, that this can't work? M: True, it was on account of their filling up their cup of woe and wrath that Jesus was forced to withdraw His protection and permit death and destruction to happen.
T: Right! Why not just say this?
M:You’re not understanding my point. The point is – God must do something to cause or permit death and destruction. Sinners did not withdraw their protection and permit the forces of nature to cause death and destruction. Of course sinners are not in control of the forces of nature, so they could hardly permit or cause this to happen. Why make this point? M:Another point to consider. The forces of nature are subject to God. They can do nothing without Him, not even cause death and destruction. If God let go, the laws of nature would simply stand still and do nothing. In order for them to cause death and destruction, God must employ them accordingly.
If God let go, nature wouldn't "simply stand still and do nothing." Nature needs the active hand of God to exist. Were God to "let go," nature would cease to exist. You say that for nature to cause death and destruction, God must employ it accordingly. Is this what you really meant to say? Let me just ask, do you think every time someone dies as the result of a natural disaster, this is because God employed nature to do such? T: Before you said that God works to prevent sin from having destructive consequences upon those who practice it, consequences deriving from the conscience being violated. The SOP tells us if we had to bear the enormity of our guilt, it would crush us. Christ bears our guilt, and when He ceases to do so for those who have rejected Him, it crushes them. I have no idea why you think God would have to add some arbitrary punishment on top of the death and destruction which you yourself said that sin causes.
M:Sinners eventually harden their hearts beyond the point of being able to feel shame and guilt. From the SOP We should not try to lessen our guilt by excusing sin. We must accept God's estimate of sin, and that is heavy indeed. Calvary alone can reveal the terrible enormity of sin. If we had to bear our own guilt, it would crush us.(MB 116) There's no indication here of what you're claiming. M: Are you suggesting resurrected sinners will suffer and die at the end of time because God is kind to them? T: I wasn't suggesting this, but I'm not opposed to the idea. That is, one could say this, and it would be true. The wicked will suffer and die at the end of time because of God's kindness to them. Amazing, isn't it? M:What is so kind about giving them over to the consequences of their choices?[/quote] GC 543 speaks to this. What is so kind about exposing them to His unveiled brightness and glory? This is your idea, not mine. What is so kind about raining down fire from above and raising up fire from below? Again, this is your idea, not mine. I completely agree that your idea of God is not kind. The word justice comes to mind – not kindness. Again, according to your way of looking at things, I agree that God is not kind. However, I believe your way of looking at things is incorrect, and that, in reality, God is kind in the judgment. To support this idea, that God is kind, I note: The principles of kindness, mercy, and love, taught and exemplified by our Saviour, are a transcript of the will and character of God. Christ declared that He taught nothing except that which He had received from His Father. The principles of the divine government are in perfect harmony with the Saviour's precept, "Love your enemies."(GC 541) This specifically points out that God is kind in the judgment. From Scripture we read that God is agape, that agape is kind, and that God "changes not." So we conclude that God will not cease being kind in the judgment. God has the best interests in mind of all, including those who reject Him, and He will treat them with kindness. T: I think the character of the One acting in both comings is the same, and was fully revealed by Jesus Christ, whose "whole purpose" was the "revelation of God." I don't think Christ only revealed one side of God, the kinder/gentler side, and that His other side, the vindictive/violent side will be revealed later.
M:If both sets of prophecies describing both advents are identical, how, then, could the Jews misapply them? Please refer to the many quotations I posted above (the ones you omitted). Do you see how they describe two radically different advents? They're different in that different things happen, but not different in that God is different. What Jesus revealed in His humanity is sufficient to understand God's actions in both comings.
Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
|
|
|
Re: The Old Covenant and Its Law—Only for Israel?
[Re: Tom]
#117491
08/11/09 01:35 PM
08/11/09 01:35 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Condemnation and death are integral aspects of the law. The capital punishment aspect of the "judgment and laws" were "only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified".
t: ok, mm. that is how you understand it. no problem. smile It also happens to be what God said. I am merely agreeing with what He said. So you're right, it's "no problem". In fact, it would only be a problem if I didn't agree with God.
|
|
|
Re: The Old Covenant and Its Law—Only for Israel?
[Re: Mountain Man]
#117493
08/11/09 01:46 PM
08/11/09 01:46 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
M: No, they're not "rituals laws". To say God is not in favor of divorce, slavery, and polygamy begs the question - Why did He give the COI laws and judgments regulating such practices?
T: Because of the hardness of their hearts, as Jesus Christ explained.
M: Why didn't He prohibit them? Is it possible there are underlining principles that still apply today?
T: Sure, it's possible that there are some underlying principles that would apply. That's a far cry from saying that the law applies to us, however. For example, we're not to divorce our wives for any reason we choose, as in the law of Moses. 1. What did you mean when you wrote God wasn't in favor of divorce, slavery, and polygamy when He gave Moses laws governing the practice of them? Did God view such practices as sinful? 2. "Sure, it's possible that there are some underlying principles that would apply." Can you elaborate on this point? What are some of the underlining principles regarding divorce, slavery, and polygamy that apply today? 3. "That's a far cry from saying that the law applies to us, however." Do you know of anyone that believes this way? 4. "For example, we're not to divorce our wives for any reason we choose, as in the law of Moses." Where in the law of Moses did God give the COI permission to get divorced for any reason?
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
