|
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 (dedication, Karen Y, Daryl, 2 invisible),
2,513
guests, and 16
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: The Covenants
#11802
12/08/04 06:43 PM
12/08/04 06:43 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
John, Ellen White's endorsements of Waggoner and Jones, over 1000 of them, continued well into the 1890's. In 1895 her endorsements of W. W. Prescott were very stong as well. As I stated before, the only theological correction EGW issued towards either EJW or ATJ that I am aware of was towards EJW stating that he was incorrect to say that Christ could not sin. That's it. The spiritual affinity quote you provided was from 1908, well outside the time of her endorsements. The statement in 1893 was regarding a dream, indicating God was using her to warn one of the messengers of a possible mistake. There's no record of her speaking ill of any of Jones' actual teachings at this time. Regarding their falling away, she wrote: quote:
It is quite possible that Elder Jones or Waggoner may be overthrown by the temptations of the enemy; but if they should be, this would not prove that they had had no message from God, or that the work that they had done was all a mistake. But should this happen, how many would take this position, and enter into a fatal delusion because they are not under the control of the Spirit of God. They walk in the sparks of their own kindling, and cannot distinguish between the fire they have kindled and the light which God has given, and they walk in blindness as did the Jews. (1888 Mat. 1044)
Ellen White never claimed Waggoner and Jones had a message to "assist" her in the preaching of righteousness by faith. They had a message from God, and she benefited by that message because she opened her heart to receive it. She stated they taught righteousness by faith better than she did. She stated that they brought a message which we would not have had unless God had sent it by someone else, indicating that it was not a message she had been presenting.
Here is one of her endorsements:
quote:
This message has not had the influence that it should have had upon the mind and heart of the believers. The true state of the church is to be presented before men, and they are to receive the word of God not as something originating with men, but as the word of God. Many have treated the message to the Laodiceans as it has come to them, as the word of man...The message given us by A. T. Jones, and E. J. Waggoner is the message of God to the Laodicean church, and woe be unto anyone who professes to believe the truth and yet does not reflect to others the God-given rays. (1888 Mat. 1052)
|
|
|
Re: The Covenants
#11803
12/08/04 06:47 PM
12/08/04 06:47 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
God required of the COI exactly what He had always required. They were saved by faith in Christ. True faith is always manifest in obedience God's commandments.
In our time we partake of communion and baptism as public expressions of our faith. In their time they had different methods of manifesting their faith, but the principle is exactly the same for them as well as for us. They, and we, are justified by faith which works.
|
|
|
Re: The Covenants
#11804
12/09/04 12:59 AM
12/09/04 12:59 AM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
So, is that a yes or no? Did God require the COI to obey the old covenant? Did their salvation depend on their obedience?
RH
Our salvation depends on our obedience. {RH, April 26, 1898 par. 2}
RC 274
The condition of eternal life is now just what it always has been--just what it was in Paradise before the fall of our first parents--perfect obedience to the law of God, perfect righteousness. {RC 274.5}
|
|
|
Re: The Covenants
#11805
12/09/04 02:10 AM
12/09/04 02:10 AM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
quote:
The conditions of eternal life, under grace, are just what they were in Eden--perfect righteousness, harmony with God, perfect conformity to the principles of His law. The standard of character presented in the Old Testament is the same that is presented in the New Testament. This standard is not one to which we cannot attain. In every command or injunction that God gives there is a promise, the most positive, underlying the command. God has made provision that we may become like unto Him, and He will accomplish this for all who do not interpose a perverse will and thus frustrate His grace. (MB 76)
quote:
Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
(John 6:28,29)
Those who believe obey. Those who obey believe. There's no difference whatsoever between the requirement to believe and obey. True faith is always manifest in obedience. True obedience is only possible by faith.
God required of the COI that they be justified by faith which works. This would be theirs if they did not interpose a perverse will and frustrate His grace.
|
|
|
Re: The Covenants
#11806
12/09/04 04:00 AM
12/09/04 04:00 AM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Did God require the COI to obey the old covenant? Yes or no, please.
|
|
|
Re: The Covenants
#11807
12/09/04 05:16 AM
12/09/04 05:16 AM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Do you believe that Waggoner's view of the Covenant is truth? Based on what you've written, I have doubts that you understand the Old Covenant as I do. I know you don't if you disagree with Waggoner's view. She warned that trying to establish a view of the Covenants different than Waggoner's was a "waste of investigative power" yet as far as I can tell, this is what you're doing.
If your view of the Old Covenant is different than mine (I agree with Ellen White that Waggoner's view is correct) then how can I answer your question? I will mean one thing (what Waggoner meant) and you will mean another (what you mean), unless your view is in harmony with his.
I've explained several times what I believe God's requirements for the COI were. They were exactly the same as His requirements for us. They needed to believe in Christ so that their sins could be forgiven and their hearts of stone could be replaced by hearts of flesh, on which would be written God's law. By faith they were to be obedient to God's commands, just as we.
|
|
|
Re: The Covenants
#11808
12/09/04 10:02 AM
12/09/04 10:02 AM
|
|
|
Tom, I think you might need to re-read those quotes I supplied in the last post. quote:
The spiritual affinity quote you provided was from 1908, well outside the time of her endorsements.
She wrote that passage in 1908, yes, but the event to which she was referring in that passage occurred in 1891, just three years after 1888.
quote:
The statement in 1893 was regarding a dream, indicating God was using her to warn one of the messengers of a possible mistake. There's no record of her speaking ill of any of Jones' actual teachings at this time.
Not so. If you'll read the entire passage from 1SM carefully, it's very plain that what she saw in her dream was an actual event where Jones was preaching misleading theories. Hence the need for her to send him this testimony. She wasn't warning him about what might happen; she was warning him about what he had already done, and would continue to do if she didn't alert him as to his error.
I understand very well that EGW endorsed Waggoner and Jones' message of righteousness by faith as presented at the Minneapolis 1888 General Conference session. But that doesn't transfer over into her endorsing everything they taught anywhere near that time. What I'm illustrating here is that even a few years after 1888 both men were believing and teaching things that were in error, and EGW was shown this. So we need to be careful what and how much we accept of what Jones & Waggoner taught on certain subjects.
As for your statement that the 1888 message "was not a message she [EGW] had been presenting," -- she herself wrote,"I have had the question asked, what do you think of this light which these men [A.T. Jones and E.J. Waggoner] are presenting? Why, I have been presenting it to you for the last forty-five years, -- the matchless charms of Christ. This is what I have been trying to present before your minds." Ms 5, 1889, p. 10. (Sermon delivered at Rome, N. Y., June 17, 1889.)
{1MR 142.1} Evidently her treatment of the subject had been falling on deaf ears to some degree, so God raised up Waggoner and Jones in another attempt to get His message through.
|
|
|
Re: The Covenants
#11809
12/09/04 02:48 PM
12/09/04 02:48 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Tom, you haven't answered my question with a straight forward answer. And I think I know why. You seem to be afraid to admit that God required the COI to obey the old covenant because you don't believe God initiated it. And if it didn't originate with God then it would be wrong for Him to insist that they comply with the specific criteria and conditions required therein.
The question now is, Which criteria and conditions do you believe the COI added, which ones do you believe God did not require? I think I know the answer to this question, but please, I would like to see it first. Please, don't ask me to post what I think, at least, not until you post it first. Thanx.
|
|
|
Re: The Covenants
#11810
12/11/04 06:10 AM
12/11/04 06:10 AM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Mike: Tom, you haven't answered my question with a straight forward answer. Tom: I've answered your question like four times. If you don't know what the old covenant is, how can I answer your question? You will interpret my meaning incorrectly -- you have to. Let me ask you this, does the Old Covenant lead to bondage? If it does, which is what Gal. 4:24 says, then wouldn't fulfilling it lead to bondage? Mike: And I think I know why. Tom: I doubt it, even thought I've clearly told you. It's because you appear to me to not understand what the Old Covenant is. Mike: You seem to be afraid to admit that God required the COI to obey the old covenant because you don't believe God initiated it. Tom: I know God didn't initiate it. God gave us light about it. He told us so through His prophet. quote:
Since I made the statement last Sabbath that the view of the covenants as it had been taught by Brother Waggoner was truth, it seems that great relief has come to many minds. (1888 Mat. 623)
quote:
"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.
quote:
which things are symbolic. For these are the F15 two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar-- (Gal. 4:24)
Isn't this clear?
Mike: And if it didn't originate with God then it would be wrong for Him to insist that they comply with the specific criteria and conditions required therein.
Tom: Why would this follow? I don't think it does. Inspiration teaches us we should honor our vows to God.
Mike: The question now is, Which criteria and conditions do you believe the COI added, which ones do you believe God did not require? I think I know the answer to this question, but please, I would like to see it first. Please, don't ask me to post what I think, at least, not until you post it first. Thanx.
Tom: I've answered this several times. The conditions for eternal life are the same for them as for any person who has lived in all history. They were justified by faith in Christ which works. By faith in Christ they were to be obedient to God's commands. How can I say this any more clearly Mike? What is it that you're not understanding? I don't get it.
|
|
|
Re: The Covenants
#11811
12/11/04 02:44 PM
12/11/04 02:44 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
The question now is, (1) which criteria and conditions do you believe the COI added, and (2) which ones do you believe God would not have required them to obey had they not insisted on it?
The old covenant includes the same conditions and requirements as contained in the Abrahamic covenant, plus more. The old covenant also requires everything required by the new covenant, plus more. What I'm asking you about is the "plus more" conditions and requirements contained in the old covenant. What is considered "plus more", and which aspects of the old covenant do you believe engendered bondage?
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
