You still haven't explained why Ellen White rejected the sabbath truth.
Jonah also rejected God's message to warn Nineveh. Did that make Jonah a false prophet? But Jonah finally responded. God was guiding Ellen White, and she eventually accepted all the truth. Her visions were inspired, but her opinions formed that were not as a result of inspiration were not. I could list you countless examples of prophets who made major blunders in their personal ideas.
You haven't explained why Ellen attached compliance to the sabbath was requisite to "salvation", and yet never once kept the sabbath holy according to the law that ordained it. And, neither have you!
Maybe because I have seen such material? I would equate Sabbath-keeping no different than the obligation for a Christian to not steal, murder, or bear false witness. If one purposely breaks the Sabbath, it is no different than purposely trying to break the other 9. This kind of fruit reveals that the character of Christ has truly not transformed the soul.
You haven't accepted Romans 7:6-7 explanation that we have been delivered from the Ten Commandments, identified by quoting directly from it with the phrase "You shall not covet".
We have been delivered from the 10 commandments. I agree.
But your version of "deliverance" is contrary to the scriptures. I will just briefly say for now that "deliverance" from the 10 commandments means to be delivered from their condemnation. Those who are "under the law" in the context of Romans are those who are "under the condemnation of the law", because they are not under "grace", which imputes strength and power to enable the sinner to overcome sin (the transgression of the law).
In a nutshell, those who are BREAKING the 10 commandments, are "UNDER THE LAW".
Those who are KEEPING the 10 commandments, BY FAITH, THROUGH GRACE, are "UNDER GRACE". These are they that are delivered from the bondage of sin, and therefore, the 10 commandments cannot condemn you, because you are delivered from their scrutenizing power.
The 10 commandments only bring death to the sinner. Only the blood of Jesus can bring life to the soul. But once the Christians has received Christ as His personal Saviour, a new life begets in the soul and he now begins to live a life in harmony with its precepts.
The basis of God's Government is still the 10 commandments. That is the foundational platform for which ALL laws of Christ hang from, and are extended from. The mosaic laws revolving the sanctuary services, and various ceremonies such as circumcision, slaying of the lamb, burnt offerings, meat offerings, etc. etc. were not laws of righteousness. They were "REMEDIES" for sinning against the moral law, for which the 10 commandments in the Ark of the Covenant was the basis for the entire agreement.
The problem with the Galatians was that they were trying to remedy their own sins through the Mosaic earthly system, through their own merits, and not the blood of Christ and His High Priestly ministry in heaven. Therefore, by depending on their own ceremonial practices, they were inadvertently denying Christ as their High Priest in heaven, and were placing themselves under the condemnation of the law, because the earthly ceremonial remedies for sin could no longer atone for sin, as type had met antitype. Therefore, their sins against the 10 commandments could not be remedied. This was the "crux" of the issue in Galatians, and Paul was trying to help them see that they had been "bewitched". The primary focus of Galatians was the "book of the law", and "circumcision/circumcised" listed 12 times throughout the book of Galatians! The issue was not whether the 10 commandments were in force or not, it was meditorial work---rebuking them for attempting to atone for their own sins, and not relying on the merits of their High Priest in heaven.
You rejected the testimony from Moses telling you exactly what the Ten Commandments was.
Perhaps I'm not understanding your argument? Please break it down meticulously again.
You haven't accepted Paul's conclusion that those retained by the covenant from Mount Sinai will not share life with the Heir.
You mean the covenant where they said "We will do", but not "God will do in me"? Please don't forget that there were 2 covenants made at Sinai. One in Exodus 19, the 10 commandments in Exodus 20, and then the one in Exodus 19 was repeated again in Exodus 24.
The Old Covenant promise is based on a system of works, for which God never intended in the first place.
"But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone" (Romans 9:31,32)
Let us assume for a moment that Israel HAD attained the law of righteousness by faith, and not the works of the law. Would this have removed their obligation to be obedient to the 10 commandments? I'm afraid not. The New Covenant promise was not to remove the law, but to write it in the heart of the believer.
The living reality is, there is only really ONE COVENANT. Now, before you jump all over me, this does not mean there are not two covenants, the Old and New. But it means that there is only ONE covenant which one can be saved by.
It was never God's intent to make a New Covenant with Israel. It was God's intent that Israel were to live up to the promises they made from the very beginning. We are told unequivocally, and unapologetically, that had the first covenant been faultless, no need would have been to make a second covenant:
"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them [ISRAEL], he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." (Hebrews 8:7,8)
We see therefore that it became absolutely necessary to make a new covenant seeing that the failure of the Old Covenant had to do with the faults of Israel, not the law. They sought the law of righteousness by works and not by faith. They relied on their own strength to keep the 10 commandments, and not the strength of God working in them. This goes to show why those who break the 10 commandments are actually repeating the mistakes of Israel and falling under the Old Covenant. But those who keep the 10 commandments by faith, and have them written in their hearts, come under the New Covenant experience---which is the faith of Abraham illustrated in Galatians 4.
If you read the entire chapter of Jeremiah 31 very carefully, you will see just how displeased God was with the Jews, which is why God emphasized that it was now necessary for him to make a New Covenant---since because the Jews failed to rely on God for strength, and had no change of heart, God’s promise was to confirm the covenant and make it new. The covenant became old, and had to vanish, based on the poor promises of Israel. The New Covenant is still made to Israel, as clearly shown in Jeremiah 31. Removing the law does not change the heart. It does not remedy a thing. It only makes it so the sinner has nothing to measure up to. Without law, there is no standard of righteousness. Do you really believe that God wanted the Old Covenant to fail? This covenant God made with Israel was a re-integration of the Everlasting Covenant made with mankind at creation, made again with Noah, made again with Abraham, and then made again with Israel at Mt. Sinai! Once broken by their poor promises, a New Covenant was necessary. But the ratification of the New Covenant was STILL the ratification of the Everlasting Covenant!!!
“Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant.” (Hebrews 13:20) This “everlasting covenant” is mentioned in Genesis 9:16 with Noah (which points back to the eternal creation covenant), with Abraham (Genesis 17:7,13,19), with Israel (Leviticus 24:8 ), again with David (2 Samuel 23:5), is repeated in 1 Chronicles 16:17 and Psalms 105:10; Isaiah 24:5 mentions how Israel was “breaking” the everlasting covenant, but it also says in Hebrews 8 that Israel broke the Old Covenant too, so we see a connection here.
After breaking it again and again, out of God’s mercy, He continued to re-introduce the Everlasting Covenant to Israel (Isaiah 55:3; 61:8 ). In Jeremiah 31 God mentions how he was to make a new covenant with Israel, and he calls this new covenant the “everlasting covenant” in the very next chapter, Jeremiah 32, by saying:
“And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.” (Jeremiah 32:40), again in Ezekiel 16:60 God reminds them of it, and in Ezekiel 37:26 God calls the “everlasting covenant”, a “covenant of peace”. Finally Paul shows how the blood of the everlasting covenant was ratified.
We then see a gradual re-integration and re-introduction of the Everlasting Covenant, and we see that the Old Covenant was the Everlasting Covenant. We see that the New Covenant was also the Everlasting Covenant. Hence, we see the following accurate picture emerge:
The Old Covenant was the Everlasting Covenant broken by the poor promises of Israel. The New Covenant was the Everlasting Covenant recaptured, restored, and made better by the blood of Christ. The Adamic Covenant, the Noahic Covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant, the Mosaic or Old Covenant, AND the David Covenant were progressive reintroductions of the Everlasting Covenant throughout history. The Adamic Covenant in Genesis 3:15 was the BEGINNING of the Everlasting Covenant's reintroduction until it was finally ratified by the blood of Christ. You can learn more about this in a thorough study given
here on
pages 9-21.
I believe this to be sound doctrine that cannot be moved in light of the texts presented above. It is a more logical, and accurate approach to God's dealings with humanity rather than the erroneous dispensational divisions the Protestants make the Bible out to be. Yes, even those so called "non-dispensationalists" are akin to their dispensational brothers, as long as they reject the binding nature of the 10 commandments to the Everlasting Covenant, which is the New Covenant.
Let us keep in mind God did not install the Old Covenant based on Works. But it BECAME works after Israel failed to live up to the promises. That’s why it became equated with Hagar in Galatians 4! This is not difficult to comprehend. We cannot make God out to be an unreasonable God….forcing the Jews to live by works, but then allow the Gentiles to go scott free! Otherwise, we make God out to be a respector of persons. The very fact that Sarah, the Free-woman is equated with the New Covenant PROVES that the New Covenant experience existed in the Old Covenant!!! Because SARAH AND ABRAHAM LIVED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT TIME PERIOD!
Unless we are to conclude that the New Covenant experience only existed with Abraham, then God suddenly shifted to an old covenant of works at Sinai, then back to a New Covenant again? Remember, the "Old" Covenant in the Old Testament was never called "OLD". It only BECAME "Old" after Israel broke it, because it was based on poor promises. See Exodus 19:8 and 24:7.
There is only ONE covenant by which you can be saved by!!! BIG DIFFERENCE! And when God instituted the covenant, it was a covenant by which God meant the Israelites to be SAVED BY. But they broke it, and therefore, a new one was required. A new one was necessary. No human being will enter the kingdom of heaven by virtue of the Old Covenant. Not one.
While the Israelites were living in the Old Covenant "time period", they could only be saved by virtue of the New Covenant experience. The Old Testament ceremonial types pointed to this.
I repeat:
“For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.” (Hebrews 8:6,7)
God instituted a covenant. God expected the Israelites to seek Him by faith. But they did not. They sought righteousness by works, not righteousness by faith, so therefore, they broke the agreement. They broke the promise. They broke the contract. This is why the Old Covenant was filled with “poor promises”. It was filled with “I will do”, not “God will do in me”. The fault of the covenant was not God’s working, but the failure of the people to exercise the faith of Abraham. It would be ludicrous to say that God expected Abraham to have faith (and that this is the New Covenant experience), and then suddenly to switch gears and say the Israelites must try to be saved through the bondwoman!
Try to digest what is
really going on here. I have presented this understanding to some people, and after the light-bulbs went off, it was like a WHOLE new world opened up to them. The Bible became more real and living to them.
(Continued...)
