Adventists view of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant

reddogs · Jul 14, 2026

A covenant in Bible times was a solemn promise and/or agreement, often confirmed by an oath. If you ask most people about it, you will find much misunderstanding about the most elementary significance of the covenants, their relationship with law and salvation, and especially to how it relates to Christians today. If you ask the question, "When did the Old covenant begin?" most people would say on Sinai, with Moses. But if you ask, "When did the New covenant begin?" the answers are inconsistent or nill for the most part. Adventist hold that the Old and the New Covenants are the same, one that was written on stone and needs to be in the heart not just follow the letter of the law but the true meaning, and Christ points to this in Matthew 5:20.

Matthew 5:20
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Adventist look at the following text that can clarify the situation.

Jeremiah 31:31-33
“31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

This text contains the basic elements of both covenants and also helps in understanding them.

The Old covenant has the time, "I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt".
It has the covenant partners, "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:"
It has the covenant objective, "I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
It has the covenant conditions, "my law"
Now let’s look at the New covenant in Hebrews 8:8-10:

“8 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:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:"

Using the same passage which is repeated, the same elements are found for the New Testament, except for the difference in time.

The New covenant has the time, "Behold, the days come".
It has the covenant partners, "a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:"
It has the covenant objective, " I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:".
It has the covenant conditions, "my laws"
So except for the time element, there is no difference between the two covenants. The covenant partners are the same, the covenant objective is the same, and the covenant conditions are the same. The 'Old Covenant' and the 'New Covenant' are by faith and denying self and trusting in God, and allowing our hearts to be changed we be transformed. So one can see that the Old Covenant and the Old Covenant are the same.

reddogs · Jul 14, 2026

Here is from the Adventist site.

All About the Old and New Covenants in the Bible

“Covenant” is a theme throughout the Bible.

Christians often talk about the old and new covenants being separate, but in reality, Scripture is referring to different phases or renewals of the same one.

That’s why it’s called the everlasting covenant. The old and new covenants were always a part of God’s plan to save humanity from sin and reunite them with Him.

God gave it to Adam and Eve when He first promised to send a Deliverer to destroy sin (Genesis 3:15, when God describes Jesus crushing the head of the serpent). But God didn’t stop there. He repeated that promise throughout the Old Testament—to Noah, Abraham, the Israelites, and King David—until the New Testament, where we see its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus.

In short, this covenant is all about God’s promise to deliver us through Christ Jesus, who would take on our sins, offer us forgiveness, and place His law and character in our hearts and minds (Hebrews 8:8-12).

Let’s examine what the Bible has to say about the old and new covenants as we look at:

Since covenant isn’t a common word today, let’s start by defining it in modern terms.

What is a covenant in the Bible?

Photo by RDNE Stock project
A covenant is a contract based on a relationship. Some other synonyms for it are agreement, promise, and pledge.

See, this is more than just the contract you make when you rent an apartment or hire a contractor.

It’s more like a marriage. It signifies the seriousness and importance of the relationship by establishing definitions, rules, and boundaries—and if any of those are broken, the relationship is hurt.

To those entering into a covenant, it tells them what they’re getting into, so there’s no doubt, misunderstanding, or miscommunication.

This kind of promise makes sense considering how the Bible always emphasizes God’s desire to have a loving relationship with us, and to be clear about the depth and importance of this relationship.

These kinds of agreements were common between people in ancient biblical times. Some examples are:

The agreement Jacob made with his father-in-law Laban (Genesis 31:44)
The agreement between Jonathan and David (1 Samuel 20:11-16)

According to the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary, there were two kinds of covenants in ancient times1:

Between equals
Between an inferior and a superior

When this promise is between equals, both individuals agree on the conditions, privileges, and responsibilities involved.

In the one between someone and their superior, the superior would specify these things for both parties.

The second, of course, is more reflective of the covenant God made with humanity in the sense that He specified the conditions, privileges, or responsibilities.

But He did even more than that.

He sent Jesus to uphold humanity’s responsibility when we failed on our end. Sinful human beings are incapable of perfectly keeping our promises to Him, but Jesus became a human so that He could live out our part—both as our example and our Deliverer.

God’s covenant, from the very beginning, pointed to that reality.

The everlasting covenant through biblical history

Since the Bible mentions an “old” and a “new” covenant, it can be easy to assume it’s talking about two different things. But with closer study, we find that they’re really phases of the same covenant God renewed with His people throughout Bible history (Genesis 3:15; 17:7; Hebrews 13:20).

Adventist scholar Roy Gane, PhD, describes it this way:

“In the Bible, the divine covenants are unified and function as phases of cumulative development in God’s overall plan. That is to say, they really form sub-covenants of one grand, overarching Covenant.”2

This “grand, overarching Covenant” is sometimes called the “everlasting covenant” in the Bible. It’s highlighted in the following passages:

“Incline your ear, and come to Me. Hear, and your soul shall live; And I will make an everlasting covenant with you—the sure mercies of David” (Isaiah 55:3, NKJV).

“Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you complete in every good work to do His will, working in you what is well pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever” (Hebrews 13:20-21, NKJV).

God made this promise to His people in the beginning. But throughout the Old Testament, we can read about countless “covenant failures.”3 Even His chosen people, the nation He commissioned to represent Him to the rest of the world, failed to live up to their end.

But rather than throwing up His hands and giving up (like humans would likely do), God approached the Israelites and renewed His promise with them.

Roy Gane calls these renewals “God’s covenant initiatives,” which came after “transitional periods of decline” in God’s relationship with His people.4

He lists these covenant initiatives (with the transitional periods in between) as follows:

The gospel promise to Adam
- Transitional period: The flood
The promise to Noah
- Transitional period: People disperse from the Tower of Babel
The promise to Abraham
- Transitional period: The Israelites in Egypt
The promise to the Israelites
- Transitional period: The ark of the covenant taken
The promise to King David
- Transitional period: Exile in Babylon
The new covenant promise

Let’s explore each of these initiatives in more depth and see how they form a part of God’s everlasting covenant....

reddogs · Jul 14, 2026

The Gospel promise to Adam and Eve

In Eden, God established a covenant with Adam and Eve, both before and after they sinned.5

The very first covenant involved a boundary—not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Genesis 2:15-17).

When Adam and Eve violated this promise, God didn’t give up on them—even though He had every right to do so. He loved them so much that He made a plan to save them from the sin that would now be part of their lives and bring them back into a restored relationship with Him.

The first mention of God’s Gospel promise to save humanity is revealed in the words He spoke to the serpent, who represents sin:

“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel” (Genesis 3:15, NKJV).

According to this promise, an offspring (“seed”) of the woman would come as a Deliverer and bruise the head of the serpent. In other words, God the Father promised to send a Messiah to save us from our sins. The only thing was, this Messiah wouldn’t be just anyone. It would be God the Son Himself, incarnated as a human being. In this way, God the Son would pay the penalty for humanity’s transgression. He would be “wounded on our behalf” (His heel would be bruised).6

It’s significant that God made this promise to the human race well before the existence of the nation of Israel.7

This demonstrates that God’s covenant promise wasn’t just with one group of people. God loves all His created children with the same love. So this promise was with everyone—Jews and Gentiles (non-Jews) alike (Romans 3:29; 9:23-24).

And it isn’t just a covenant of the past, either! Its “everlasting” promise reaches all the way to us, today.

(But we’re getting ahead of ourselves!)

Let’s explore the other places in Scripture that describe this covenant.

The promise to Noah

The first time the word covenant is used in the Bible is actually in the story of Noah (Genesis 6:18).

Hundreds of years had passed since Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. And since then, life on earth had deteriorated. By succumbing to selfishness, fear, greed, and all the awful and destructive manifestations of sin, almost all the people on earth had broken their relationship with God over and over, to the point of completely severing themselves from His presence and influence.

God was pained to see the sin and suffering humanity lived in. He knew that if humanity was to have another opportunity at escaping this misery, He would have to stop this now-rampant evil from flourishing. And because almost all of humanity had turned away from God, embraced the selfish way of sin, and cut themselves off from God’s covenant relationship, there was no choice left but to destroy the world in order to give the remnant of believing humans a fighting chance.

That remnant was one family. Even with the deep moral darkness of those times, Noah’s family was still faithful to God. So He instructed them to build an ark, and He preserved them through this worldwide flood that destroyed the earth, washing it clean of the harmful ways of life that had covered it.

Afterward, God renewed His covenant with Noah:

“Understand that I am establishing my covenant with you and your descendants after you, and with every living creature that is with you—birds, livestock, and all wildlife of the earth that are with you—all the animals of the earth that came out of the ark. I establish my covenant with you that never again will every creature be wiped out by floodwaters; there will never again be a flood to destroy the earth” (Genesis 9:9-11, CSB).

God gave Noah, and all of us, a rainbow as a sign of this promise (verses 12-17).

Unfortunately, though, future generations would again make the mistake of turning away from God in favor of selfish endeavors. But God still didn’t give up. He would look to renew His covenant with humanity once again through Abraham.

The promise to Abraham

The covenant God made with Abraham was a restatement of His promise to Adam and Eve. God called Abraham to leave his homeland and go to the Promised Land, where God would bless him as the father of a large, significant nation:

“I will make you a great nation; I will bless you, and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 12:2-3, NKJV).

All the families of the earth would be blessed through Abraham because someday, the Messiah—the seed of the woman spoken about in Genesis 3:15—would come through His lineage.

Pastor and evangelist Ty Gibson explains that, in essence, God was saying to Abraham, “You’re the one I’m choosing…to initiate the lineage through which ultimately all the families of the earth are going to be blessed. This is pointing forward to the complete fulfillment of Jesus Christ as the Son of Abraham.”

Throughout Abraham’s life and experiences recorded in the Bible, God renewed His covenant with Abraham. This happened at least three times, often after Abraham failed to trust God’s promise.8

These renewals show us something beautiful about God:

He doesn’t give up on us.

When Abraham—and later Israel—failed to live up to their end of the covenant, God still came and renewed it with them. God was faithful.

Let’s zoom in for a moment on Genesis 15.

In this chapter, Abraham became worried about whether God’s promise would be fulfilled. He didn’t have any children. How could he become a great nation?

But God addressed his doubts:

“Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them. … So shall your descendants be” (Genesis 15:5, NKJV).

Then, God asked Abraham to do something that sounds a bit strange:

“‘Bring Me a three-year-old heifer, a three-year-old female goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.’ Then he brought all these to Him and cut them in two, down the middle, and placed each piece opposite the other; but he did not cut the birds in two” (Genesis 15:9-10, NKJV).

This wouldn’t have been a strange ceremony in the ancient world, however. It was a symbolic ceremony for establishing a covenant.9

The Hebrew word for “make” in making a covenant is karat, which means “to cut.” God was literally “cutting a covenant” with Abraham.10

We use this same language today when we say things like “cut a deal” or “cut an agreement,” etc.

In ancient times, an individual would form a contract by cutting animals in half and walking between them. By doing this, the individual was essentially saying, “Let this happen to me if I don’t hold up my end.”

And that’s exactly what God did. In a pillar of fire and smoke, He passed between the cut animals (Genesis 15:17), swearing His very life to keep His promise (Hebrews 6:13-14).

And it wasn’t just any agreement—it was the everlasting one He would later keep and fulfill through Jesus (Genesis 17:19). God would indeed give His very life for our failure to keep it.

Find out more about the covenant God made with Abraham.....

reddogs · Jul 14, 2026

The Mosaic covenant

God began to fulfill His promise to Abraham as his descendants grew into a great nation, the Israelites. After a famine forced them to move to Egypt for a time, years later they ended up in slavery until God miraculously delivered them under the leadership of Moses. Now they could again seek the Promised Land that Abraham was given.

But God’s relationship with His people was in disrepair. During their time in Egypt, the Israelites, to a great extent, had lost sight of who God was and what it meant to follow Him.

It was time to renew the covenant.

God wanted to help them understand His power and trustworthiness. And as freshly-liberated but largely uncivilized people, He also knew they needed instruction in how to obey His law of love in a functioning framework of a society. And finally, they needed something tangible to remind them of the pain and destruction of sin and the need for a Savior.

So, in Exodus 19-24, God approached the Israelites in a glorious display of thunder and lightning upon Mount Sinai and spoke His law to them.

As part of this covenant, God told the Israelites about the Ten Commandments—which were principles of the loving relationship God has wanted to have with us (and for us to have with each other) since the beginning (Genesis 2:2-3; 4:10-11).

He also gave the Israelites the Mosaic law, which consisted of new ceremonies and a sacrificial system to help them grow in practical knowledge and spiritual understanding. The sacrifices of various animals and the keeping of specific festivals specifically pointed forward to Jesus—the One who would act on behalf of all humanity to fulfill the covenant.

After being enslaved for so many years, the Mosaic law was necessary to help Israelites re-learn how to live as a nation. It would help them mature in their faith so they could more fully understand what God wanted to do for them.

Moses read the stipulations to them:

“Then [Moses] took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said, ‘All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.’ And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, ‘Behold the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words’” (Exodus 24:7-8, ESV).

The sprinkling of blood sealed the agreement (Hebrews 9:15-22), which was a common practice in ancient times.11

The Israelites had entered into a relationship with God once again.

But to a great extent, they still missed the point. They ambitiously promised to do all that God had spoken—including keep the Ten Commandments—while relying on themselves. They didn’t look to Him for strength and resolve.

And as a result, they couldn’t hold up their end of the deal. They fell short and turned away from God. Over and over and over again.

The book of Judges records their cycle of turning away from God, being taken captive by their enemies, and then seeking God again for deliverance. By the time we get to King David, God must again renew His covenant, which has repeatedly been broken by His people.

The promise to King David

The promise made to Adam and Eve and Abraham was again given to David, the second king of Israel (1 Samuel 13:14).

God repeats it in a slightly different way:

“He [David] shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men. But My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from before you. And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you. Your throne shall be established forever” (2 Samuel 7:13-16, NKJV).

Why would David’s house and kingdom be established forever?

Because the Messiah would come through His lineage and set up an everlasting kingdom. This is why many prophecies of Jesus spoke of Him as the Son of David (Jeremiah 23:5-6, ESV).

Unfortunately, even the upstanding David would fail to fully obey God and keep His covenant. And the same was true for many of the kings after him. Some would honor and serve God, while others turned the people of Israel away from God.

Eventually, because they continued to neglect God’s guidance for selfish ambition, fear, greed, or various things that enticed them about other nations, God allowed them to do as they chose, and they eventually were conquered and forced into captivity by Babylon. They had refused His protection, and there was nothing He could do because He will not violate our free will.

But even during these times of failure, God had plans to renew His promise:

“Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord” (Jeremiah 31:31-32, NKJV).

Keep reading to learn more about that covenant, which includes us today.

The “new” covenant

In Jeremiah 31, when God mourned the ways His people had broken His covenant, He looked forward to a “new” covenant He would make with His people:

“But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord.

For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more” (Jeremiah 31:33-34, NKJV).

Paul later repeats it in the book of Hebrews (chapter 8, verses 8-12). It consists of four promises from God:

He will put His law (the Ten Commandments) in their minds and write them on their hearts.
He will be their God, and they will be His people.
All will know Him.
He will give them mercy and no longer remember their sins.

This covenant was established when Jesus died on the Cross. He highlighted this at the Last Supper when He said the wine symbolized “the blood of the covenant” (Matthew 26:27-28, NKJV). Just as the agreement with Israel was renewed with the sprinkling of blood, Jesus would confirm the new covenant with His own blood.

He came and lived a perfect life—which we were not capable of doing after opting back in Eden to know both good and evil (Genesis 3:5, 22, CSB).

Then, He took our sins upon Him—all our failures to keep God’s covenant and obey His commandments—so that He could give us His goodness and faithfulness (2 Corinthians 5:21).

God pledged His life to not only uphold His end of the agreement, but also our end. A sacrifice of the highest level possible.

Then, He rose again and gave us His Holy Spirit to make the covenant a reality in each of our lives. Through His power, we can grow toward His character, which is reflected in the Ten Commandments (John 14:15-17).

But you may still be wondering, what’s the difference between the new covenant and those that came before?

What’s the difference between the old covenant the Israelites entered and the new?

The overall promise of the covenant is the same for both the old and the new. The main difference is in the promises to keep the covenant.

In Hebrews 8:7-8, Paul points out that the old covenant itself wasn’t the problem—the fault was with those who entered into it. They agreed to obey God’s covenant but soon broke it (Jeremiah 31:32).

The new covenant, though, is based on “better promises” (Hebrews 8:6, ESV).

Rather than trusting their own efforts, God’s people enter the new covenant by trusting in Jesus and what He fulfilled for them on the Cross.

Through Jesus, God promises to forgive their sins and write His law in their hearts and minds. God internalizes the law in them and makes it possible for them to be faithful to the covenant through His power.

And really, this was always the point.

Back in Eden, the everlasting covenant looked forward to a Messiah who would be victorious. And the ancient sacrificial and sanctuary services all pointed to the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29, NKJV).

So, as professor Jiří Moskala, ThD, PhD, points out, “This content of the new covenant was nothing new; it was only the renewed appeal to internalize God’s law, thus underscoring the continuity of this covenant.”12

The new covenant was simply all that God had promised coming true.

Theologian Roy Gane also emphasizes the following point:

“Contrary to common misconception, the difference between the Old Testament covenant phases and the ‘new covenant’ is not the difference between salvation through law in the former and salvation through grace in the latter.”13

Salvation always came through Jesus, as evidenced by the lambs that were sacrificed to help ancient Israel (and all humanity) understand the depth and purpose of what Jesus was going to do. In the Old Testament, God’s people looked forward to the coming Messiah. And now, we’re able to look back to the Messiah who has fulfilled the covenant and given us hope for the brightest future possible.

Rather than the ancient Israelite sanctuary, Jesus has gone, as our high priest, to the Most holy Place in the heavenly sanctuary so He can give us the power to be faithful to it (Hebrews 4:14-16).

Here’s a summary of the similarities and differences between these two:

The Everlasting Covenant

Salvation for all humanity has always been through Jesus

“Old” Covenant	“New” Covenant
Looked forward to the Messiah (Genesis 3:15)	Looked back to the Messiah’s finished work (John 1:29)
Demonstrated by sacrifices and ceremonies of Mosaic law, which pointed to Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection (Hebrews 9:1)	No more need for the sacrifices and ceremonies of the Mosaic law (Ephesians 2:15)
The Ten Commandments written on stone (Deuteronomy 4:13)	The Ten Commandments written in our hearts (Hebrews 8:10)
Failed because the people of God failed to uphold their end (Exodus 24:7-8; Hebrews 8:8)	Succeeds because Jesus upholds our end and empowers us (Hebrews 8:6)
Symbols in the earthly sanctuary (Hebrews 9:1-10)	Jesus as our high priest in the heavenly sanctuary (Hebrews 9:11-12)

How are the covenants relevant today?

Though we now live in the time of the new covenant, we can look back through the Old Testament and see God’s love and patience in His renewals of the covenant. These renewals paved the way for Jesus to confirm it at His death.

And we get to live in the reality of that.

As followers of Christ, we are still part of the lineage of Abraham, as the apostle Paul points out:

“And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:29, NKJV).

In other words, the same everlasting covenant given to Abraham reaches to us.

Through it, God has promised to empower us in our Christian walk as we trust in Him:

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, ‘The just shall live by faith’” (Romans 1:16-17, NKJV).

The new covenant is all about this life of “faith to faith” in God. By faith, we receive forgiveness of sin. And by faith, we receive Jesus through His Holy Spirit working in our lives.

The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary points this out, too:

“The new covenant succeeds because it is fulfilled, not in our own poor human strength, but in the power of faith in the indwelling Christ.”14

The covenants teach us that our salvation, our growth into Christ’s character, and our faithfulness to God are not because of anything we do, or any promises we make to God. Our promises will only fail. But Jesus has made a promise to do sanctifying work within us (Philippians 1:6).... All About the Old and New Covenants in the Bible

SabbathBlessings · Jul 14, 2026

The key to understanding the New Covenant is in Jeremiah, what Hebrews quotes Heb8:10 Jer 31:33 where we see a clear violation of every one of the Ten Commandments what God spoke Jer 7:22-23 Exo20:1-17 and personally wrote on tablets of stone Exo31:18 and Jeremiah warning God's people to get back to not forsaking God and His laws. Jer 16:11

The issue is God's people were so far removed from God and His covenant due to mans traditions, they no longer even knew what sin was Jer 16:10:11- there sins were so great and they lost all reasoning of God's righteousness and depended on their own Jer 17:5 their sins were engraved on the tablets of their heart Jer 17:1

Why God had no choice but to write a New Covenant from tablets of stone, to tablets of the heart 2Cor3:3 not based on what the people does, but on what God will do, the better promise of the New Covenant, the New Covenant is established on better promises Heb8:6, not new laws as people teach, when God promised He would not alter the words of His covenant Psa89:34 its everlasting Isa 24:5 Isa 55:3 Isa 56:6 because what God does is forever Ecc3:14 . Why its still a sin in the NC to break God's commandments 1John3:4 James 2:11 Rom7:7 Jesus warned us not to break the least of these commandments or teach others to Mat5:19-30

God doesn;t want His commandments on stone, He wants them engraved into tablets of the heart, removing the heart of stone and transforming people though His perfect law Psa 19:7 written by God Himself Exo31:18 by our love to Him through His Spirit John14:15-18

God righteousness Psa 119:172 Isa 56:1-2 is forever Psa 119:142 its the foundation of God's throne Psa 89:14 God's will is that we fear God and not sin against Him Exo20:20 but keep His commandments Ecc12:13-14 Rev14:6-12 through a transformed heart that God gives us when we are willing to do His will. When we refuse to subject ourselves to God's laws Rom8:7-8, refuse to be in a covenant with God Jer 31:33 Heb8:10 lay them aside for mans traditions Mat15:3-14 Isa 29:13 God's Spirit can't help transform us, He will not force us, He gives us everything we need to overcome- will we allow Him to Heb3:7-19 and stop depending on our righteousness (what feels right to us Jer 17:9) and depend on God's Psa 119:172 Isa 56:1-2

The Liturgist · Jul 14, 2026

reddogs said:
Theologian Roy Gane also emphasizes the following point:

His point is contradicted by Galatians 3:15-5:15 and by Romans, actually by Galatians (entire) and Romans (entire).

reddogs said:
Christians often talk about the old and new covenants being separate, but in reality, Scripture is referring to different phases or renewals of the same one.

Says no verse of Scripture. Indeed that statement directly ignores what Christ our True God says in Matthew 26:26-28 (but then again so does the Adventist rejection* of the doctrine of Christ being really present, either physically, as the early church believed, or spiritually, as Calvin taught(.

*The misreading of 1 Corinthians “this do ye in remembrance of me” as being Christ contradicting what He said about the Eucharist in Matthew 26 and Mark 14, and John chapter 6, and 1 Corinthians chapter 10, and other related eisegetical misinterpretation of St. Paul is clearly what St. Peter is warning us about in 2 Peter 3:16. Since I have no doubt someone will try to invoke it in an attempt to neutralize the verses in Romans and Galatians that declare we are no longer under the Law, it is important to show the kind of error St. Peter is actually talking about.

SabbathBlessings · Jul 14, 2026

The Liturgist said:
His point is contradicted by Galatians 3:15-5:15 and by Romans, actually by Galatians (entire) and Romans (entire).

Says no verse of Scripture. Indeed that verse directly ignore what Christ our True God says in Matthew 26:26-28 (but then again so does the Adventist rejection* of the doctrine of Christ being really present, either physically, as the early church believed, or spiritually, as Calvin taught(.

*The misreading of 1 Corinthians “this do ye in remembrance of me” as being Christ contradicting what He said about the Eucharist in Matthew 26 and Mark 14, and John chapter 6, and 1 Corinthians chapter 10, and other related eisegetical misinterpretation of St. Paul is clearly what St. Peter is warning us about in 2 Peter 3:16. Since I have no doubt someone will try to invoke it in an attempt to neutralize the verses in Romans and Galatians that declare we are no longer under the Law, it is important to show the kind of error St. Peter is actually talking about.

Considering this is a thread about God's laws being in our heart and when you say we are no longer under the law, so does that mean we can dishonor God and break the law of God Rom2:22-23 and be sinners Rom7:7 leading to death Heb10:26-30 Rom6:16, are you claiming this is what Paul is teaching? We can lay aside the commandments of God Jesus said not to and go murder, steal, lie, cheat, do evil and unrighteousness- Paul taught to not love God and keep God's commandments- are you sure about this?

so does the Adventist rejection* of the doctrine of Christ being really present, either physically, as the early church believed The misreading of 1 Corinthians “this do ye in remembrance of me” as being Christ contradicting what He said about the Eucharist in Matthew 26 and Mark 14, and John chapter 6, and 1 Corinthians chapter 10, and other related eisegetical misinterpretation of St. Paul is clearly what St. Peter is warning us about in 2 Peter 3:16. Since I have no doubt someone will try to invoke it in an attempt to neutralize the verses in Romans and Galatians that declare we are no longer under the Law, it is important to show the kind of error St. Peter is actually talking about.

Another accusation that Adventists rejection of Christ present, not substantiated and to the point in my previous post, the one who accuses others, is really the one doing.

What do Adventist believe

Notice in our Official beliefs that it does not say Christ is absent. It explicitly says:

"Christ is present to meet and strengthen His people."
"As we partake, we joyfully proclaim the Lord's death until He comes again."

16. The Lord’s Supper (Communion)

https://adventist.org/beliefs#belief-16

The Lord’s Supper is a participation in the emblems of the body and blood of Jesus as an expression of faith in Him, our Lord and Saviour.
In this experience of communion Christ is present to meet and strengthen His people. As we partake, we joyfully proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes again.
Preparation for the Supper includes self-examination, repentance, and confession. The Master ordained the service of foot-washing to signify renewed cleansing, to express a willingness to serve one another in Christlike humility, and to unite our hearts in love.
The communion service is open to all believing Christians.
(Matt. 26:17-30; John 6:48-63; 13:1-17; 1 Cor. 10:16, 17; 11:23-30; Rev. 3:20.)

The Liturgist · Jul 14, 2026

SabbathBlessings said:
Considering this is a thread about God's laws being in our heart and when you say we are no longer under the law

I’m merely quoting St. Paul, who addresses this:

1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The Liturgist · Jul 14, 2026

SabbathBlessings said:
Another accusation that Adventists rejection of Christ present, not substantiated

I am not accusing Adventists of anything; I am merely echoing what I have been told in numerous debates on the subject.

The phrase “real presence” is theological term, not one invented by me, that refers to the omnipresence of God but to the bread specifically becoming His Body and to the wine specifically becoming His Blood (not neccessary via trans-substantiation, which is a Thomistic interpretation, but with a definite local presence, so that when one partakes of the Eucharist one really does eat the body of our Lord and drink His blood, either physically or in a specific spiritual manner (as per some interpretations of Calvinist sacramental theology) - we have had numerous lengthy debates in which SDA members have insisted this is not the case but have instead quoted 1 Corinthians 11 to claim that the Eucharist is a memorial and only a memorial, not a symbol as in Zwinglianism, and not a means of grace, and not something where Christ is physically present, or physically partaken of (thus also excluding Receptionisism, which is another erroneous doctrine but one which as far as I am aware Adventists are innocent of, that asserts that when we eat the bread and drink the wine, at that time, in the act of receiving the Eucharist it is the Body and Blood of our Lord but not before (and that view is, like Memorialism and Zwinglianism, an error).

Indeed in one debate with one of your co-religionists a reductio ad absurdum was used in which traditional Christians were asked if Christ was a door in an attempt to prove that the bread and wine are not the Body and Blood of Christ.

@tall73 @Jipsah @Ain't Zwinglian and @MarkRohfrietsch can confirm this is what I was referring to.

Now if you dislike the phrase, well, alas, I didn’t coin it, neither will I defend it, I prefer “real change” but that phrase is not as widely known.

MarkRohfrietsch · Jul 14, 2026

The Liturgist said:
I am not accusing Adventists of anything; I am merely echoing what I have been told in numerous debates on the subject.

The phrase “real presence” is theological term, not one invented by me, that refers to the omnipresence of God but to the bread specifically becoming His Body and to the wine specifically becoming His Blood (not neccessary via trans-substantiation, which is a Thomistic interpretation, but with a definite local presence, so that when one partakes of the Eucharist one really does eat the body of our Lord and drink His blood, either physically or in a specific spiritual manner (as per some interpretations of Calvinist sacramental theology) - we have had numerous lengthy debates in which SDA members have insisted this is not the case but have instead quoted 1 Corinthians 11 to claim that the Eucharist is a memorial and only a memorial, not a symbol as in Zwinglianism, and not a means of grace, and not something where Christ is physically present, or physically partaken of (thus also excluding Receptionisism, which is another erroneous doctrine but one which as far as I am aware Adventists are innocent of, that asserts that when we eat the bread and drink the wine, at that time, in the act of receiving the Eucharist it is the Body and Blood of our Lord but not before (and that view is, like Memorialism and Zwinglianism, an error).

Indeed in one debate with one of your co-religionists a reductio ad absurdum was used in which traditional Christians were asked if Christ was a door in an attempt to prove that the bread and wine are not the Body and Blood of Christ.

@tall73 @Jipsah @Ain't Zwinglian and @MarkRohfrietsch can confirm this is what I was referring to.

Now if you dislike the phrase, well, alas, I didn’t coin it, neither will I defend it, I prefer “real change” but that phrase is not as widely known.

I like " truly present In, with and under the bread and wine"

SabbathBlessings · Jul 14, 2026

The Liturgist said:
I am not accusing Adventists of anything;

Sure you did..

so does the Adventist rejection* of the doctrine of Christ being really present, either physically, as the early church believed The misreading of 1 Corinthians “this do ye in remembrance of me” as being Christ contradicting what He said about the Eucharist in Matthew 26 and Mark 14, and John chapter 6, and 1 Corinthians chapter 10, and other related eisegetical misinterpretation of St. Paul is clearly what St. Peter is warning us about in 2 Peter 3:16. Since I have no doubt someone will try to invoke it in an attempt to neutralize the verses in Romans and Galatians that declare we are no longer under the Law, it is important to show the kind of error St. Peter is actually talking about.

You are asserting that Seventh-day Adventists reject the doctrine of Christ's real presence. This is an accusation of what we believe and its false as shown in our posted Statements of Beliefs. The fact this was shown to you and instead of apologizing for misrepresenting what we believe and after making a plain accusation that is not true and spinning to be not an accusation, when it clearly is, shows that I am not dealing with someone that can be reasoned with.

Thankfully God will be the one to sort this all out, these types of conversations are fruitless.

BobRyan · Jul 14, 2026

The New Covenant is "The one and only Gospel" as Gal 1:6-9 reminds us that there is only one

reddogs said:
Adventist hold that the Old and the New Covenants are the same, one that was written on stone and needs to be in the heart not just follow the letter of the law but the true meaning, and Christ points to this in Matthew 5:20.

The two very different covenants deal with the same moral law of God. The one where "the first commandment with a promise is Honor your father and mother" as Paul says in Eph 6:1-2 .

In the Bible the term 'old covenant' is only found in the New Testament but it applies to both testaments. Humans are lost only under that "obey and live" covenant.

There is a glimpse of it in Jer 31:31-34 statement also found in Heb 8. (Not like the covenant I made...)

reddogs said:
The “new” covenant
In Jeremiah 31, when God mourned the ways His people had broken His covenant, He looked forward to a “new” covenant He would make with His people:

“But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord.

For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more” (Jeremiah 31:33-34, NKJV).

exactly. This is not a thread about eating bread... but about the actual promise, the words actually in the New Covenant of Jer 31 and Hebrews 8. All of it made possible by the dead and resurrection of Christ 2000 years ago.

this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord.
For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more

The Sinai covenant is "a type" of the old Covenant "obey and live" that was stated in Gen 2.

In the New Testament the definition for "Old covenant" is made more clear as "Obey and Live" as we see in Gal 3:13

Gal 3:
12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them. (i.e. "Obey and Live"
13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”—

That is also what we see in Gen 2, Adam and Eve were fine as long as they had perfect obedience. As beings who were created perfect they had no need to fail at all.

Rom 3 says that same "obey and live" rule still applies and since all have sinned all are doomed apart from the Gospel ... same thing we see in Genesis 3. Once Adam and Eve sinned, they immediately needed the Gospel.

Rom 3:
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;

In all of time, all humans needed the Gospel. There never was a path for sinful fallen man to obtain salvation apart from the gospel

The new Covenant is not "obey and Live", rather it is the miracle of the New Birth, New Creation with that same moral law of God that still to this very day condemns all mankind, written on the heart of the New Creation, the heart of flesh not the heart of stone.

Those two covenants are wAYYYYY different even though we are still talking about the same "do not take God's name in vain" Law of God written on the heart.

BobRyan · Jul 14, 2026

The Liturgist said:
I am not accusing Adventists of anything; I am merely echoing what I have been told in numerous debates on the subject.

The phrase “real presence” is theological term, not one invented by me,

sounds like a different topic

The Liturgist · Jul 14, 2026

BobRyan said:
sounds like a different topic

Its not, because the Blood of our Lord is the Blood of the New Covenant, and partaking of it is an essential means of grace - does the SDA acknowledge this fact?

Additionally insofar as Matthew 26:28 and the other accounts of the Institution Narrative refer to a singular New Covenant, the idea that actually the two covenants are the same thing is incorrect.

The Liturgist · Jul 14, 2026

SabbathBlessings said:
You are asserting that Seventh-day Adventists reject the doctrine of Christ's real presence.

As the term is conventionally defined, the term ‘real presence’ as used by theologians refers to Christ being truly locally present in the Eucharist, so that at the appointed moment in the Liturgy, either the Words of Institution or the Epiklesis, the bread and wine are changed into His body and blood, and these are then partaken of.

Your use of the phrase “real presence” disagrees with the common meaning of the phrase, which I did not coin - if you object to that phrase, you’re complaining to the wrong person. Real presence is the term that refers to the belief in the physical presence of Christ even by those denominations such as the Orthodox and Lutherans who do not believe in trans-substantiation, which is an early Renaissance explanation of the doctrine of Christ’s physical presence using Aristotelian categories.

Now once again, I did not come up with the phrase “real presence” - so if you have a complaint about it, I’m not the person to talk to (although in their defense I would note that the phrase has been in use for decades, and I’ve never heard of Adventists complaining about it, and in the past whenever I’ve mentioned the importance of the real presence, and explained why it is preferrable to the Zwinglian-Memorialist interpretation, Adventists have disagreed with my argument but not complained once about the terminology. Indeed during the entire time the phraase “real presence” which time Adventists have consistently used Memorialist and Zwinglian language to refer to the Eucharist (which is inherently contrary to what is meant by real presence). Indeed on your own website it says the bread and wine are “emblems” which is a classically Zwinglian-Memorialist position - the real presence doctrine is that Christ’s Body is present in the bread, and Christ’s blood is present in the Wine.

Ain't Zwinglian · Jul 14, 2026

The Liturgist said:
Indeed in one debate with one of your co-religionists a reductio ad absurdum was used in which traditional Christians were asked if Christ was a door in an attempt to prove that the bread and wine are not the Body and Blood of Christ.

Not knowing the difference between a metaphor (I am the door) and a synecdoche (This is my body) will always get you in trouble. Completely different literary devices.

BobRyan · Jul 15, 2026

Ain't Zwinglian said:
Not knowing the difference between a metaphor (I am the door) and a synecdoche (This is my body) will always get you in trouble. Completely different literary devices.

sounds like a metaphor and a metaphor. Jesus is not a corpse at the last supper pointing at his dead body and handing it out.

Even Catholics admit that he was breaking bread and handing it out.

Not knowing the difference between literal and metaphor got the disciples in hot water a few times.

Matt 16:
5 And the disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “He said that because we did not bring any bread.” 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, “You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up? 10 Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up? 11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

John 6:
51 I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”

(How many people saw bread come down out of the sky in John 6?)

52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” ...
58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”
59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

66 As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. 67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69 We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”

Notice that the faithful disciples stay to hear the meaning of the metaphor, the faithless ones took him too literally and left.

In both John 6 and Matt 16 some people took Him too literally. Still happens today with Matt 26:28.

In any case this thread is not about symbols it is about the gospel itself , it is not about eating bread, it is about being saved by grace through faith and the new covenant words as stated in Heb 8 and Jer 31:31-34 which point to the great atoning sacrifice of 1 john 2:2

"He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world"

A "once for all sacrifice" competed at the cross and Hebrews 10 points out.

in John 6 Jesus said "eating literal flesh is useless" John 6:63

No one in John 6 is "confecting the body , soul and divinity of Christ" in an oven or anywhere else.

BobRyan · Jul 15, 2026

The Liturgist said:
Its not, because the Blood of our Lord is the Blood of the New Covenant

That is the part where we agree.

The Liturgist said:
refer to a singular New Covenant,

Agreed. We see its promise spelled out clearly in Jer 31:31-34 and in Heb 8.

Very different from the "obey and live" covenant in Gen 2, under which, all mankind is condemned to the lake of fire without the gospel as Rom 3:19-21 states

the term "New Covenant" comes to mind when we hear the gospel with its promises. The symbol of bread points us to Christ and His New Covenant , the gospel, the new birth. This is not simply a bread topic.

The Liturgist · Jul 15, 2026

BobRyan said:
Jesus is not a corpse at the last supper pointing at his dead body and handing it out.

A strawman / reductio ad absurdum fallacy combo-pack, since no denomination which believes in the Real Presence teaches that.

At any rate, Christ is fully God and we partake of His divine nature, according to St. Peter, His body is the bread of heaven - indeed the manna in Exodus is a prophecy of the Eucharist, as is the shewbread and drink offerings in the Israelite religion more broadly.

BobRyan said:
51 I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”

Previously you tried to insist John chapter 6 was not related to Holy Communion, but now you’re trying to use it to contradict “This is my body” and “this is my blood.”

BobRyan said:
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

66 As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. 67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69 We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”

Notice that the faithful disciples stay to hear the meaning of the metaphor, the faithless ones took him too literally and left.

In both John 6 and Matt 16 some people took Him too literally

On the contrary, they failed to take Him literally because of their carnal reaction. Rather than trusting that Christ would make His Eucharist a delight (I know of nothing that tastes better or is more satisfying than Holy Communion, and have been miraculously healed by it repeatedly, but only in churches that teach it to be the actual Body and Blood of Christ), they allowed their fleshy instincts to revolt against the idea of eating a man, ignoring the fact that Christ is also God, for indeed, they were not fully aware of His deity - only a few of the Apostles were aware of it before He rose again.

Fortunately these disciples, when confronted by the resurrection, mostly or entirely returned to Christ and comprise many of the Seventy.

BobRyan said:
in John 6 Jesus said "eating literal flesh is useless"

No, He did not, he said “the flesh profiteth nothing” for which I have provided an exegesis, and which is also consistent with the warnings of St. Paul that the letter killeth, but the Spirit gives life in 2 Corinthians 3:6 regarding the Law (which is why we reject legalism).

You are trying to force your own memorialist interpretation onto the words of our Lord, an interpretation which did not exist prior to the 16th century (100% of recorded Patristic texts and liturgical documents refer to a belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist).

Also your argument simply glosses over the Calvinist/Reformed interpretation of a spiritual presence of Christ so that spiritually the bread and wine are the Body and Blood. For that matter it also ignores the Lutheran insistence that body and blood are in, with and under the form of bread and wine, and the Roman Catholic position that the accidents, that is to say, the perceptual properties, of the bread and wine remain, with only the substance or essence (the ousios) changing. Even the Orthodox say that the gifts retain their prior perceptual properties under ordinary conditions, to ensure our comfort (but occasionally God has allowed people to see the flesh and blood of our Lord as a means of conversion, for example, we venerate a Muslim who saw this, converted and received, like most Muslim converts, a crown of martyrdom).

BobRyan said:
No one in John 6 is "confecting the body , soul and divinity of Christ" in an oven or anywhere else.

Another strawman / reductio ad absurdum, and also, while John 6 refers to the Eucharist, it is not an account of the Last Supper in which we participate in Holy Communion.

As for Matthew 16, it is not a Eucharistic passage, and also, implying that Christians who believe in the Real Presence are of little faith ignores the fact such Christians who account for the majority of martyrs in the past 175 years (due to the 1870s genocide of Bulgarians and the 1915 genocide of Armenians, Syriac Orthodox, Assyrians and Pontic Greeks under the Ottoman Empire, and the Communist agricultural policies that starved Russian Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic Christians in the Ukrainian SSR and other provinces of the USSR and in Ethiopia under the Derg Communist rule, and the mass slaughter of Slavic and Romanian Christians by the Nazis and Soviets in WWII, the above populations being mostly or entirely members of denominations which believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Now, if you had not used a logical fallacy and had said “I interpret the words of Christ to mean…” rather than “Jesus said” I would not have objected to the form of your argument; I would have disagreed, but the actual argument itself would be correctly structured. However we see once again a recurring pattern: Denial of the existence of possible alternative interpretations (which I have not done, by citing Calvinist, Lutheran and Catholic interpretations which are non-contradictory), combined with the use of logical fallacies.

BobRyan said:
That is the part where we agree.

I appreciate your recognition that the issue of the Eucharist is topical to a discussion of the Adventist interpretation of the New Covenant. So presumably based on that statement the Adventists regard the Lord’s Supper as a memorial or symbol of the institution of the New Covenant?

Leaf473 · Jul 15, 2026

SabbathBlessings said:
Considering this is a thread about God's laws being in our heart and when you say we are no longer under the law, so does that mean we can dishonor God and break the law of God Rom2:22-23 and be sinners Rom7:7 leading to death Heb10:26-30 Rom6:16, are you claiming this is what Paul is teaching? We can lay aside the commandments of God Jesus said not to and go murder, steal, lie, cheat, do evil and unrighteousness- Paul taught to not love God and keep God's commandments- are you sure about this?

Another accusation that Adventists rejection of Christ present, not substantiated and to the point in my previous post, the one who accuses others, is really the one doing.

What do Adventist believe

Notice in our Official beliefs that it does not say Christ is absent. It explicitly says:

"Christ is present to meet and strengthen His people."
"As we partake, we joyfully proclaim the Lord's death until He comes again."

16. The Lord’s Supper (Communion)

https://adventist.org/beliefs#belief-16
The Lord’s Supper is a participation in the emblems of the body and blood of Jesus as an expression of faith in Him, our Lord and Saviour.
In this experience of communion Christ is present to meet and strengthen His people. As we partake, we joyfully proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes again.
Preparation for the Supper includes self-examination, repentance, and confession. The Master ordained the service of foot-washing to signify renewed cleansing, to express a willingness to serve one another in Christlike humility, and to unite our hearts in love.
The communion service is open to all believing Christians.
(Matt. 26:17-30; John 6:48-63; 13:1-17; 1 Cor. 10:16, 17; 11:23-30; Rev. 3:20.)

SabbathBlessings said:
In this experience of communion Christ is present to meet and strengthen His people.

If you're interested in what Catholics mean when they say Real Rresence

What the Early Church Believed: The Real Presence

The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Eucharist, Jesus is literally present under the appearances of bread and wine.

www.catholic.com

Edited to add: I believe the Orthodox say the same/very similar.

Adventists view of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant

Contributor

Contributor

All About the Old and New Covenants in the Bible​

What is a covenant in the Bible?​

The everlasting covenant through biblical history​

​

Contributor

The Gospel promise to Adam and Eve​

The promise to Noah​

The promise to Abraham​

Contributor

The Mosaic covenant​

The promise to King David​

The “new” covenant​

What’s the difference between the old covenant the Israelites entered and the new?​

The Everlasting Covenant​

How are the covenants relevant today?​

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

16. The Lord’s Supper (Communion)​

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Unapologetic Apologist

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

16. The Lord’s Supper (Communion)​

Similar threads

All About the Old and New Covenants in the Bible

What is a covenant in the Bible?

The everlasting covenant through biblical history

The Gospel promise to Adam and Eve

The promise to Noah

The promise to Abraham

The Mosaic covenant

The promise to King David

The “new” covenant

What’s the difference between the old covenant the Israelites entered and the new?

The Everlasting Covenant

How are the covenants relevant today?

16. The Lord’s Supper (Communion)

16. The Lord’s Supper (Communion)