Are you saying the OC was bad because it consisted of 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? If so, then we’re in agreement on this *one* point.

Also, do you think the OC consists of things that are an amplification of the NC? For example, do you think the OC ceremonial system is an amplification of the NC ceremonial system? If not, why not?


That thread isn’t discussing the issue I’m raising here. The SOP passages you omitted here agree with the point I am making, namely, one of the reasons the OC was bad is due to the fact it required the COI to obey and observe ceremonial laws and rituals “that was against us, which was contrary to us”. This point is very much applicable to this thread.


Having to obey and observe all those ceremonial laws and rituals was a kind of bondage. I’m not using the word “bondage” in the same sense you seem to think I am, that is, in some kind of sinful sense.

You seem to be implying that the OC version of the ceremonial system, the enhanced and greatly expanded version, was a “bad thing”. Do you think God designed it based on unbelief? If not, what did unbelief have to do with it?

Do you see any similarities between the ceremonial systems under the new and old covenants? Or, do you think they are fundamentally different? If so, please explain why and how.

“We see then that the two covenants are not matters of time, but of condition.” Yes, there is an aspect of the OC that is representative of an attitude. You seem to have forgotten that I agree on this *one* point. I also believe, however, time was another aspect of the OC. “As the Bible presents two laws, one changeless and eternal, the other provisional and temporary, so there are two covenants.” {PP 370.2} There were time dated elements of the OC, namely, the ceremonial laws and rituals that ended with the death of Jesus.

If you’re saying you believe Jesus lived out in actions while here in the flesh everything He lived out in actions in OT, then, yes, we disagree. In the OT Jesus employed the “withdraw and permit” method of allowing death and destruction to happen in consequence of sinners filling up their cup of woe and wrath. He also commanded Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death. Jesus never once acted out these things while here in the flesh. Yes, He taught them, but He never acted them out.


How about saying one more thing that actually states your position plainly. Your unwillingness to state your position plainly suggests you are embarrassed or ashamed of it. You are constantly reminding us of how important it is that we understand the truth about God, that we discern the lies of Satan about God. And yet on this very important point you are elusive and noncommittal. Why? Does it matter if we understand why Jesus commanded Moses and the COI to kill sinners? Does our salvation depend on us getting it right? Or, can we go on thinking with impunity Jesus commanded Moses and the COI to kill sinners because it’s what law and justice requires?


Why do you think the plagues consisted of force and violence? And, who or what do you think was responsible for it playing out the way did?


3 out of the 5 methods are based on your views. Here are the 5 methods Jesus employs to cause, command, or permit death and destruction to happen:

1. Jesus causes it
2. Jesus commands holy angels to do it
3. Jesus permits the forces of nature to do it
4. Jesus permits evil angels to do it
5. Jesus permits evil men to do it

Are you suggesting 3, 4, and 5 consist of force and violence? If so, why do you think Jesus would permit them to employ force and violence?



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? [/quote]
The promise of punishment and death is not the same thing as saying, “Love me or I’ll destroy.” Jesus said, “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” “Christ, in counsel with His Father, instituted the system of sacrificial offerings; that death, instead of being immediately visited upon the transgressor, should be transferred to a victim which should prefigure the great and perfect offering of the Son of God.” {1SM 230.1}

Jesus is in essence saying, “If you rely on Me to empower you to love and obey me, if you imitate My godly example, you will experience peace and happiness. However, if you despise Me and reject the salvation I wrought out for you at great cost to Myself, then I will satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice and resurrect you, judge you, punish you, and then allow you to die eternally in the lake of fire. So please, please do the right thing and let Me empower you to love and obey Me. I really don’t want you to suffer and die in the lake of fire.”


I’ve been saying this all along.

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.

T: 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? [/quote]
You keep insisting Jesus doesn’t do anything, that sinners cause it to happen.


Nature would not cease to exist. Water and matter wouldn’t vanish if Jesus stopped managing the forces of nature. Jesus is actively involved in causing the forces of nature to act and behave the way they do. For example, rain rises and falls as Jesus sees fit. Warm and cold fronts trade places as Jesus sees fit. Heat and air combine and cause wind as Jesus sees fit. Etc, etc, etc. Nothing is left to chance or natural law. In the same way, Jesus manages the forces of nature to cause death and destruction. True, there are times when He permits evil angels to manage the forces of nature to cause death and destruction. But whether Jesus causes it to happen or permits evil angels to cause it to happen, the result is the same, namely, sinners suffer and die according to the limits established by God Himself.


“A few persons pass on in a course of wrong until they become hardened. . . Yet their consciences do not condemn them.” {3T 270.2} “Those who desired a sign from Jesus had so hardened their hearts in unbelief that they did not discern in His character the likeness of God. {DA 407.2}

“It is by sinful indulgence that men give Satan access to their minds, and they go from one stage of wickedness to another. The rejection of light darkens the mind and hardens the heart, so that it is easier for them to take the next step in sin and to reject still clearer light, until at last their habits of wrongdoing become fixed. Sin ceases to appear sinful to them. {CC 108.5}

“The deadly lethargy of the world is paralyzing your senses. Sin no longer appears repulsive because you are blinded by Satan. The judgments of God are soon to be poured out upon the earth. "Escape for thy life" is the warning from the angels of God. {5T 233.3}

“The day of God's vengeance cometh--the day of the fierceness of His wrath. Who will abide the day of His coming? Men have hardened their hearts against the Spirit of God, but the arrows of His wrath will pierce where the arrows of conviction could not. God will not far hence arise to deal with the sinner. {FW 33.3}


No, it’s God’s idea. Here’s what He thinks about it:


These passages are in total agreement with the view I presented above (especially the last one).

The following passages make it clear that the COI, under the OC and its laws, were to woo and win the world to God, to motivate and encourage them to obey and observe everything Jesus commanded at Sinai:

It is the voice of Christ that speaks to us through the Old Testament. "The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." Revelation 19:10. {PP 366.3}

So in Moses also God placed a light beside the throne of the earth's greatest kingdom, that all who would, might learn of the true and living God. And all this light was given to the Egyptians before the hand of God was stretched out over them in judgments. {PP 368.3}

God called Israel, and blessed and exalted them, not that by obedience to His law they alone might receive His favor and become the exclusive recipients of His blessings, but in order to reveal Himself through them to all the inhabitants of the earth. It was for the accomplishment of this very purpose that He commanded them to keep themselves distinct from the idolatrous nations around them. {PP 369.2}

I asked you the question (which I don't think you answered)



Regarding what I meant, to be in favor of something means the thing is something you approve of, or desire.



Here's a principle. The law regarding divorce was to protect women, so this law shows that God was concerned about protecting those in need. That principle still applies.



So you're now saying that the law of Moses does *not* apply to us?



From the SOP:



Regarding where in Moses it says this, you can look it up as easily as I.

1.This isn't what you've been saying the OC consisted of.
2.It's not simply that the COI promised to obey everything God required of them without understanding something, but they thought God was requiring things of them rather than promising them the things they needed.



Regarding the Old Covenant:



I don't know how to explain it better than this.



I disagree with the idea that God gave the COI things which were against them, or contrary to them, or led them into bondage.



No it wasn't. Sin is bondage. The ceremonial law was given to point to Christ, who gives us freedom.



This is found here: http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/1888/waggonerbutler_twolaws3.html

I'd suggest reading through this pamphlet. It's covering much of the ground we're discussing.



We seem to be talking of different things. I have been referring to the Old Covenant, as Paul spoke of it, for example:



You seem to be confusing the teaching aids which God gave (which were good things, not leading to bondage) with the covenant itself (which was a bad thing, which led to bondage).



The New Covenant doesn't have a ceremonial system. It has the ministry of Christ. The sacrificial system pointed to it, so, of course, was similar to it, but I haven't been speaking of these things, but rather of the Old Covenant.



Not just "an aspect," but the covenant itself.



It doesn't appear to me you've understood *my* point, which is why, I think, you keep saying you agree with it.



The covenant is not a matter of time, but of condition. The teaching aids God gave had a time element to them, in that they were pointing forward to Christ.

I think it would help to bear in mind that it was the Old Covenant itself which led to bondage, not "an aspect of the Old Covenant," but the Old Covenant. Also I think a careful study of what Waggoner wrote would be very helpful.

What I'm saying is:
1.All that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ, in His humanity.
2.What Jesus Christ taught, He lived.
3.Therefore, Christ's life was a full and complete revelation of God.

Do you agree with this? If not, which point or points do you disagree with, and why.



Or tired, MM. I could just be tired of being asked the same questions over and over and over again, and given the same answers, and then asked again, and so forth.



I've written a lot on this subject, and referred you to more things, which I think are very clear, yet you still don't understand what is being said. I don't know what else to do, MM. Surely just repeating what I've already said isn't going to help anything.

I've pointed out that this subject is difficult, more difficult than the following, upon which, it appears to me, it depends:

1.The atonement
2.The judgment of the wicked

So why don't we concentrate on these?



According to the SOP, the atonement is the great truth upon which all other truths cluster. I think getting *that* right is very important.



People were harmed and killed violently.



I think the Egyptians were primarily responsible for it playing out the way they did, by causing God to remove His protection. Also Satan was responsible, as the author of sin.



You're making a list here, and then making claims about my view in regards to your list, and then asking me questions about that, as if all you wrote were true. Wouldn't it be better for me to make my own list, and then you ask me about that?

Here's my list:

1.People cause God's protection to be withdrawn.

As to why God would permit force and violence, this is the result of sin. In order to do away with force and violence, God would have to do away with sin. God is hard at work to accomplish this very thing, and has been since sin originated.



Which is essentially, "Do what I tell you, or I'll cause you to suffer, and then kill you," isn't it? If not, why not?

Regarding this:



If Jesus is the one who causes this to happen, then you're essentially saying that Jesus says, "I don't want to cause you to suffer, and I don't want to throw fire upon you from above and below, but I have to because the law says so."

This has a couple of problems. First of all, the law is a transcript of His character, so He can't say on the one hand He's doing something He doesn't want to do, and on the other hand say the law says He has to do it (although He doesn't want to) because the law's being a transcript of His character means, by definition, that it specifies the things He wants to do.

Secondly, if He didn't want to do it, He could just not do it. The law is not greater than Christ.



I agree that sinners cause God's protection to be withdrawn (GC 35), but where have I ever said that "Jesus doesn't do anything"?



This is pure Augustine. We don't believe this as SDA's.



Unfortunately, many SDA's do believe this. But not the previous paragraph. That's Calvinism, and we come from an Arminianist (Weslyan) tradition. You're mixing different theological systems in a hat that don't belong.

The weather does not act the way it does because Jesus Christ micromanages every molecule.



They manipulate it, not manage it.



If someone is doing something with a gun, like cleaning it, and it accidentally goes off and kills someone, or if the person purposely shoots and kills someone, the results are the same, but these are very different acts, right?

Regarding the conscience and the wicked, none of the quotes have to do with the judgment. Take a look at what she says about the judgment and conscience. That's where you'd need to find something that says that some sinners won't feel guilt.

Also, you didn't deal with the point being made, which was this:



Do you think some are excluded here? That is, there are some who could bear their own guilt?



If you're convinced that your ideas are God's ideas, there's not much point in our having a discussion, is there? In this case, shouldn't I just listen while you explicate God's ideas to me?

Secondly, I've pointed out the following to you:



Notice it says, "It is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity."

I don't understand how you could read this, and then write, "This is God's thought on the matter" and quote Ellen White. This looks to be using her in a way that's diametrically opposed to her own view of inspiration.

God wants things to be like they were before A&E sinned. So, no, He is not in favor of divorce, slavery, or polygamy. But do you think He viewed them as sinful? If so, why do you think Jesus gave the COI laws and judgments governing their practice? Also, in doing so, do you think Jesus compromised and accommodated sinful practices?


Do you have inspired insights that support your view? Where in the Bible or the SOP does it say the laws and judgments governing divorce were designed to protect women?


I merely asked a question. I believe that those aspects of the law of Moses that were “only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified” apply to us in principle if not in particular. As such, they apply to us today. Do you agree?


The fact is, Tom, the Jews made it up. Nowhere in the law of Moses did Jesus give men permission to divorce their wives for trivial offenses. The laws and judgments governing divorce are designed to protect the sanctity of marriage by allowing couples who cannot resolve and reconcile their fundamental differences to dissolve their union and start over with a clean slate.

Few things speak in favor of Christianity as highly as does happily married couples. On the other hand, few things bring more reproach upon the cause of Christ than do unhappily married couples. If discontented couples cannot resolve and reconcile their differences and restore happiness, Jesus prefers it if they get divorced than to stay shackled and dishonor His name and make it stink in the face of unbelievers.

1) What else do you think I think the OC consists of? 2) Are you implying “the OC was bad because it consisted of 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” and because “they thought God was requiring things of them rather than promising them the things they needed”?

Also, are you implying Jesus did *not* command them to obey and observe the laws of God and Moses? Or, are you saying Jesus promised them “the things they needed”? If so, what did it consist of, that is, “the things they needed”?


So, does that mean you think 1) obeying the OC “judgments and laws” which “were only the Ten Commandments amplified” and 2) observing the OC version of the ceremonial system and sacrifices resulted in “nothing but bondage”? If so, then please answer the following questions:

Who commanded them to obey and observe the OC laws and ceremonial system? Or, who promised to empower them to obey and observe them?


Are you implying, then, that commanding them to obey and observe the OC ceremonial laws and rituals were designed to teach them how to find victory and freedom in Christ? If so, why, then, does it seem like you think the OC is sinful and objectionable?


Are you implying that properly obeying and observing the OC ceremonial laws and rituals led to victory and freedom in Christ?


Are you divorcing 1) the OC “judgments and laws” which “were only the Ten Commandments amplified” and 2) the OC version of the ceremonial system and sacrifices which Jesus commanded them to obey and observe from their promise to comply with His commandments and requirements?

If so, are you thereby implying 1) the OC “judgments and laws” which “were only the Ten Commandments amplified” and 2) the OC version of the ceremonial system and sacrifices which Jesus commanded them to obey and observe “were good things, not leading to bondage”?


Originally, the NC included a system of sacrificial offerings. Ellen White wrote:

Christ, in counsel with His Father, instituted the system of sacrificial offerings; that death, instead of being immediately visited upon the transgressor, should be transferred to a victim which should prefigure the great and perfect offering of the Son of God. . . . Through the blood of this victim, man looked forward by faith to the blood of Christ which would atone for the sins of the world. {AG 131.5} The very system of sacrifices was devised by Christ, and given to Adam as typifying a Saviour to come, who would bear the sins of the world, and die for its redemption. {SD 225.3}


The OC consisted of terms and conditions, namely, 1) the law of God, 2) the “judgments and laws” which “were only the Ten Commandments amplified,” 3) the ceremonial laws and rituals, 4) Jesus commanding the COI to obey and observe them, and 5) the COI agreeing to obey and observe them in their own unaided strength.

The NC, on the other hand, consisted of the following terms and conditions, 1) the law of God, 2) a system of sacrificial offerings, 3) Jesus commanding people to obey and observe them, and 4) people promising to trust Jesus to empower them to obey and observe them. Of course, the commandment to observe the system of sacrificial offerings was valid until Jesus died on the cross. At that point, Jesus substituted it for the communion service.

Ok, you believe God gave the COI laws and judgments concerning practices He was not in favor of? Why do you think He did this?



You can study into this if you wish. It shouldn't be difficult to verify what I wrote.



Anyone can see the implication of your question is that you don't believe this way. If you did, asking the question you asked would be, at the least, very misleading.



I already answered this question. Don't you recall? It was just a couple of posts ago.



Jesus said, "He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts allowed you to put away your wives," so clearly, they didn't make it up (or else Jesus would not have said that "Moses" allowed it).



You're speaking as in 20th century language (or 21st, if you prefer). I explained the factors involved, which is easily verified. They had no concept of "couples who cannot resolve and reconcile their fundamental differences."



You're saying now? It's OK to get a divorce on grounds other than adultery?

It consists of the attempt by the people to establish their own righteousness.



The New Covenant consists of accepting the righteousness of Christ and having the law written in the heart. The Old Covenant is founded on unbelief, as opposed to accepting this promise of God, and consists of attempting to establish one's own righteousness. This attempt can only lead to bondage, and, being founded on unbelief, is bad.



I don't understand why you're asking this.



They needed righteousness. The only place to receive righteousness is from Christ. God gave them the law, in written form, and with precise instructions, so they could learn that they did not have the righteousness required, nor could they obtain it of themselves. He did this so they would be led to Christ, in whom they could find righteousness.



MM, I've been explaining to you that keeping the ceremonial law was not bondage, and providing you links to read more about this. When you ask questions like this, it gives the impression you're not paying attention to what I'm saying.



Since the "if" did not apply, I skipped this.



This can't be, MM. To consider just one thing, consider item 1). The law of God doesn't lead to bondage. It wasn't faulty. It didn't "vanish away". It wasn't replaced by the NC.



The New Covenant consists of God's promise to make us righteous when we believe in Jesus Christ. Your item 4) is the Old Covenant, not the New! The New Covenant principle is that we believe God's promises to us, not that we make promises to Him.



This is great stuff. I do hope you'll take the time to read it carefully.

As a summary, God promised Abraham an inheritance, a promise to be received by faith. That inheritance encompasses all needful things, including the earth made new, righteousness, and Christ Himself. We don't receive the inheritance by works, or by making promises to God, but by faith, which means believing His promises to us.

This doesn't imply inactivity on our part, because righteousness is, of its very nature, active, full of works. But the works come about as a result of our believing God's promises to us.

God is faithful in keeping His promises. All that we need, He has promised to us. Believing God and His promises is the essence of the New Covenant.