covanants

[freeindeed2]

Not exactly. The New Covenant is the eternal covenant since the begining. The Old/Sinai Covenant was a provisional covenant.


yes.



Again not exactly. The law of Moses contained many parts. If you look on the jewish sites, they even catagorize the '613 laws' into different sections. The Mosaic law contained the expanded moral laws based on the 10 commandments, the civil and agricultural ordinances, war, health and diet, ceremonial laws...

Dietary law and tithing are natural laws: principles and practices mentioned in the Bible before the Sinai covenant. Thus they still apply today.

Interesting interpretation.

Do you post over at CARM too?

 

[OntheDL]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This study has a companion set of audio messages you can listen to online here.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]God has always dealt with his people with covenants. Beginning with Adam and continuing until the present day, God's covenants with his people have had specific characteristics. All covenants have a three-pronged structure. They include a promise by God, a condition, and a sign. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]ADAM[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Genesis 3:15 [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Original Promise[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]All Covenants are structured[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Promise [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Condition [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Sign [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]ABRAHAM [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Genesis 15-17 (Everlasting)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Promise—Father of Multitudes [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Genesis 15:1-5 [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Condition—Faith: Abraham believed [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Genesis 15:6 [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Sign—Circumcision (Gen. 17:10-13)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]NOAH [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Genesis 9:8-17[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Promise—Never to destroy the earth by flood[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Genesis 9:8-11,15 [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Condition—Unconditional[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Sign—Rainbow (Genesis 9:12-16)[/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MOSES [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Promise—A Great Land [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Exodus 2:24-25 [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Condition—Obedience [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Exodus 19:7-8 [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Sign—The Sabbath [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](Exodus 31:12-18 & Exodus 20:8-11) [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I saw this on the web site and this is what I had in mind. I don't know that I agree with everything here, but the the covenant made to Noah is (unconditiaonal). this is were I have to question DL on his reliability. i sorry if that is an offence. i don't see the condition. [/FONT]

I had written a post on this sometime ago. And if you compare the two (with what you quoted above), there are major difference.

Genesis 6:22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.

If it were unconditional, there'd be nothing for Noah to do. Just image for all those years, Noah had to endure all the ridicules while he was building this enormous ship. Don't you think it took great faith to do what God had commanded. And if Noah didn't build the ark, would he and his family be saved?

If God favors one group of people no matter what they do (no conditions), doesn't it make Him an unjust God?

 

[Jimlarmore]

My question for those who are well studied on this is where do they come up with the idea that the ten commandments were done away with when the ceremonial laws were fulfilled at the cross? Col 2:14 is clearly speaking of the ceremonial laws and monthly sabbaths from exegesizing the context , not the ten words or the 7th day Sabbath.

Clear logic tells me how Christ's death fulfilled the ceremonial laws and that they were a shadow of His future sacrifice , but nothing in His death shows how the ten were fulfilled at the cross. There are contentions over what is meant by what the Bible means when it says "The laws of God" in the NT. James 2 makes it clear that they are the ten commandments but some other texts are not as clear as James who actually mentions two of the ten commandments i.e. murder and adultery.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[OntheDL]

My question for those who are well studied on this is where do they come up with the idea that the ten commandments were done away with when the ceremonial laws were fulfilled at the cross? Col 2:14 is clearly speaking of the ceremonial laws and monthly sabbaths from exegesizing the context , not the ten words or the 7th day Sabbath.

Clear logic tells me how Christ's death fulfilled the ceremonial laws and that they were a shadow of His future sacrifice , but nothing in His death shows how the ten were fulfilled at the cross. There are contentions over what is meant by what the Bible means when it says "The laws of God" in the NT. James 2 makes it clear that they are the ten commandments but some other texts are not as clear as James who actually mentions two of the ten commandments i.e. murder and adultery.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Hi Jim,

I'd have to agree with RC on the text alone from my study so far.

The word Sabbaton in Col 2:16 is the same for the weekly sabbath.

Look up the verses when all three are mentioned together: holy days (set feasts), new moons and sabbaths, however, all (almost) the texts in the OT were talking about the sin offerings: animal sacrifice.

So I think Paul was not talking about the holy days, new moons and sabbaths themselves, but the activities in respect (Col 2:16, KJV) or in connection with these three occassions on which animal sacrifice was conducted.

And the sacrifice was a shadow, pointed to the Christ. The set feasts (annual sabbaths), new moons and weekly sabbaths themselves do not point to Jesus. But what was performed: the sacrificial ceremonies pointed to the sacrifice of Jesus.

17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.


Hope this helps,

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I had written a post on this sometime ago. And if you compare the two (with what you quoted above), there are major difference.

Genesis 6:22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.

If it were unconditional, there'd be nothing for Noah to do. Just image for all those years, Noah had to endure all the ridicules while he was building this enormous ship. Don't you think it took great faith to do what God had commanded. And if Noah didn't build the ark, would he and his family be saved?
If God favors one group of people no matter what they do (no conditions), doesn't it make Him an unjust God?

the promise to not destroy the earth with water seems to contradict this, it is unconditional, however God never said he would not destroy another way.

they problem is the covenant was not made until AFTER the flood. what you are saying is prior to the flood. they are 2 different things.

just like abraham leaving UR is different from the promise to be a great nation

or David being named king is different from the promise that someone from his linage will always sit on the throne forever

 

[OntheDL]

they problem is the covenant was not made until AFTER the flood. what you are saying is prior to the flood. they are 2 different things.

just like abraham leaving UR is different from the promise to be a great nation

or David being named king is different from the promise that someone from his linage will always sit on the throne.

This was before the flood and actually before the building of the ark:

Genesis 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

Here in Genesis the conditions were defined. Because Noah did all according to God commanded, the covenant was established after the flood.

It's very plainly seen had Noah disobeyed God's command concerning the covenant, there would have been no covenant afterwards.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Hi Jim,

I'd have to agree with RC on the text alone from my study so far.

The word Sabbaton in Col 2:16 is the same for the weekly sabbath.

They were all called "sabbath" and the same word was used but that does not mean it was the 7th day Sabbath being referred to here. Clearly, the context indicates as you have mentioned the ceremonial aspect of these days, new moons etc.

Look up the verses when all three are mentioned together: holy days (set feasts), new moons and sabbaths, however, all (almost) the texts in the OT were talking about the sin offerings: animal sacrifice.

So I think Paul was not talking about the holy days, new moons and sabbaths themselves, but the activities in respect (Col 2:16, KJV) or in connection with these three occassions on which animal sacrifice was conducted.

And the sacrifice was a shadow, pointed to the Christ. The set feasts (annual sabbaths), new moons and weekly sabbaths themselves do not point to Jesus. But what was performed: the sacrificial ceremonies pointed to the sacrifice of Jesus.

17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.


Hope this helps,

Thanks for the input and I think in cases where folks try to say the 7th day Sabbath is a shadow of things to come have a hard time proving that idea from scripture. For that matter any of the ten could not be considered to be a shadow of things to come.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Eila]

Do you believe the Adamic, Noahic, etc are all one covenant - just revamped each time or are those separate covenants?

Does anyone know what the SDA position (or your position) is regarding this question?

Thanks!

 

[thecountrydoc]

Hello to all once again,

First, kudos to OntheDL. He has presented his point of view using the single most important gift to man at the time of creation. That is the gift of the human mind and the ability to use logic. He has not only provided textual refference, but has given the logic behind his answers.

It is most unfortunate that most Christians, including SDAs, seem to want a "thus saith the Lord," with chapter and verse, for every question raised. It is the use of man's minds, and the ability to use reason and logic that seprates man from all the rest of God's creation and gives us the ability to use free will. There is much more the we could explore on this topic, but for the moment, I don't have the time to take it any futher. I will try to comback later because the logical apects of covenants is most helpful in understanding them.

Second; I must ask icedrgon101 what I may have said that indicated that I consider myelf an athuority on this or any other topic or subject? Have I been exposed to biblical teaching over a long period of time? Certainly. Have I tried to disprove the Bible? Yes. Could I do it? No. Did I have a good teacher? Yes. Who was that teacher? Experience. Why is experience such a good teacher? Because it allows no dropouts!

Respectfully, your friend and brother in Christ,
Doc

 

[OntheDL]

Does anyone know what the SDA position (or your position) is regarding this question?

Thanks!

In a sense, yes.

All the covenants are essentially the same: obey and live. God never changes. His requirements are always the same. The bible in its entirety teaches and asks the believers to achieve obedience by Grace through faith with the empowering holy spirit.

The New Covenant of Grace was etablished when the first animal sacrifice pointed to the Messiah to come. The New Covenant was ratified when when Christ died on the cross. This is the covenant all the saints of OT and NT are saved under.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

In a sense, yes.

All the covenants are essentially the same: obey and live. God never changes. His requirements are always the same. The bible in its entirety teaches and asks the believers to achieve obedience by Grace through faith with the empowering holy spirit.

The New Covenant of Grace was etablished when the first animal sacrifice pointed to the Messiah to come. The New Covenant was ratified when when Christ died on the cross. This is the covenant all the saints of OT and NT are saved under.

how is that not legalism?

 

[OntheDL]

how is that not legalism?

You call obedience legalism?

Didn't Jesus say 'if you love me, keep my commandments'?

Sin entered the world through an act of disobedience.

God spells out if you obey, you will live; if you disobey, you will die. It's for you to choose. But if you love Jesus enough, you will obey His voice. That's love, not legalism!

 

[Jon0388g]

how is that not legalism?

Read the Bible.

Paul said we are slaves to the one whom we obey: either sin resulting in death, or obedience resulting in righteousness.

All covenants are founded on the same principle.

Jon

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Read the Bible.

Paul said we are slaves to the one whom we obey: either sin resulting in death, or obedience resulting in righteousness.

All covenants are founded on the same principle.

Jon

the problem is that paul says that AFTER he tells us that we cannot keep the law and shows us the need to be converted. We have the Choice ONLY after Conversion

 

[Adventist Dissident]

You call obedience legalism?

No I have never said obediance is legalism. I have said that the covenat that you are describing is legalistic. it is a perfromance based covenant. That is the basis of the covenant: your performance. that is was is legalistic.

Might i make a suggestion. so that you don't sound like a legalist. how about you use the word discipleship or disciple instead of obediance. they get the same result, but have very different connotations and associations. one has an almost dictitoral assocaiation the other a personal choice accompained by personal desire. Takes the sting of following God.

Didn't Jesus say 'if you love me, keep my commandments'?

you assume it is the 10 commandments. I think it can include those, but a command is any thing he tells you.

Sin entered the world through an act of disobedience.

God spells out if you obey, you will live; if you disobey, you will die.

while I agree with you that is true., in term of salvation it is not exact. Let me ask you. have you obeyed perfectly at all times???? the obvious answer is NO. No one but Christ has perfectly at all times kept the Law. You keep factoring out CONVERSION. no where in your posts on obediance do you ever talk about the need to be born again or converted.

 

[OntheDL]

No I have never said obediance is legalism. I have said that the covenat that you are describing is legalistic. it is a perfromance based covenant. That is the basis of the covenant: your performance. that is was is legalistic.

Might i make a suggestion. so that you don't sound like a legalist. how about you use the word discipleship or disciple instead of obediance. they get the same result, but have very different connotations and associations. one has an almost dictitoral assocaiation the other a personal choice accompained by personal desire. Takes the sting of following God.

I'm not concerned with what it may sound to some people. Those who like to do their own thing and don't want to be keep the law, obedience always sounds legalistic.

you assume it is the 10 commandments. I think it can include those, but a command is any thing he tells you.

Sure, all the standard of God that applies to you and me. That includes the moral laws (10 commandments) and natural laws.

while I agree with you that is true., in term of salvation it is not exact. Let me ask you. have you obeyed perfectly at all times???? the obvious answer is NO. No one but Christ has perfectly at all times kept the Law. You keep factoring out CONVERSION. no where in your posts on obediance do you ever talk about the need to be born again or converted.

Can I save you? The bible says Jesus committed no sin and leaving us an example to follow. Then follow His example.

The key is we all HAVE sinned. But are you denying that God has power to help you to keep the law perfectly? The conversion/born-again is the receiving of the holy spirit. But it continues as a daily process.

 

[freeindeed2]

The key is we all HAVE sinned. But are you denying that God has power to help you to keep the law perfectly? The conversion/born-again is the receiving of the holy spirit. But it continues as a daily process.

Simple question:

Are you keeping the law PERFECTLY? If not, then by your own definition you don't have the power of God and are lost! Receiving the Holy spirit is NOT a daily process!

 

[OntheDL]

Simple question:

Are you keeping the law PERFECTLY? If not, then by your own definition you don't have the power of God and are lost! Receiving the Holy spirit is NOT a daily process!

I suppose I can save you and take away your sins. Ask again.

Receiving the holy spirit is a daily process. "I die daily."

Keep in mind this is not a place for non-sdas to engage in debates.

 

[freeindeed2]

I suppose I can save you and take away your sins. Ask again.

Receiving the holy spirit is a daily process. "I die daily."

Keep in mind this is not a place for non-sdas to engage in debates.

I didn't engage you in debate. I asked you to clarify your claim.

You said "that God has power to help you to keep the law perfectly". I was just asking if you were keeping it perfectly since you made the claim. If not, does that mean that the power of God is not in you?

Also, does the Bible teach that you receive the Holy Spirit anew daily? It tells me he LIVES IN me. Are you saying that he leaves us daily and then we receive him again each day?

 

[Adventist Dissident]

The key is we all HAVE sinned. But are you denying that God has power to help you to keep the law perfectly? The conversion/born-again is the receiving of the holy spirit. But it continues as a daily process.

I am not denying any thing, it is after conversion and it is from a place of strength not weekness. Conversion is not a daily process. where is your biblical proof on that. dicipleship is a daily process.