What are 7th day adventists?

[Eagle55]

I addressed this before, very quickly in a post you obviously didn't read. This is a common mistake we see all the time on the forum.

Just as Romans 7:6-7 identifies the law we have been delivered from by quoting it, so does this passage to identify the law the author establishes.
Just add context and absorb the entire passage.

Romans 3:21 - 4:8
21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference;
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,
26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.
29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also,
30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.
31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.
1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?
2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."
4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.
5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,
6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin."​

The law established is the same Law and Prophets this author states are witnesses to righteousness imputed by faith, and not compliance.
And...
That law is quoted: "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."

If you're going to claim that Genesis 15:6 describes the covenant from Mount Sinai and/or the law mediated by Moses 430 years later, you are going to be dismissed as incompetent. Please read the passages you claim help your sound-bite theological eisegesis instead of forming whole premises on sound bites.

Victor; I am puzzled at the tone of your posts to me; however, I will try to respond with how I understand the points you made about certain Scriptures.

Romans 4:31 is not a law. It is an accounting of something that Abraham did. The faith which Abraham exercised was, that his posterity should be like the stars of heaven in number. This promise was made to him when he had no child, and of course when he had no prospect of such a posterity. See more details re the strength and nature of this faith further illustrated in Rom 4:16-21. The reason why it was counted to him for righteousness was, that it was such a strong, direct, and unwavering act of confidence in the promise of God.

My question about Romans 3:31 is still quite valid. No matter what one tries to say the law is, as used in that verse; if we give people the idea that the law is the same as "the old covenant" then you tell us that Romans 4:31 is the law, and in other posts how the law/old covenant is "abolished" you create a Biblical context nightmare.

I would invite people reading this to just look in your own Bibles, do some comparisons with your Strong's numbers, and examine the two words in the context of Romans 3:31. When we go along with the errant theology of saying the ten commandments are the covenant, rather than the object of the covenant, we cannot support using "covenant" in place of "law" in Romans 3:31 If you could ever explain why I am so wrong on this point, there are a lot of other reasons why the old covenant has to be looked at as an agreement about the ten commandments; but not being the ten commandments themselves.

 

[VictorC]

Victor; I am puzzled at the tone of your posts to me; however, I will try to respond with how I understand the points you made about certain Scriptures.

Romans 4:31 is not a law. It is an accounting of something that Abraham did. The faith which Abraham exercised was, that his posterity should be like the stars of heaven in number. This promise was made to him when he had no child, and of course when he had no prospect of such a posterity. See more details re the strength and nature of this faith further illustrated in Rom 4:16-21. The reason why it was counted to him for righteousness was, that it was such a strong, direct, and unwavering act of confidence in the promise of God.

I think that you mean to cite Romans 4:3, which quotes from the law: For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” That quote comes from Genesis 15:6, which is from the writings of Moses known as the Law, or the Torah. Romans 3:21 introduces the Law and the Prophets as the witnesses of righteousness imputed apart from the covenant law from Sinai: But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets.

My question about Romans 3:31 is still quite valid. No matter what one tries to say the law is, as used in that verse; if we give people the idea that the law is the same as "the old covenant" then you tell us that Romans 4:31 is the law, and in other posts how the law/old covenant is "abolished" you create a Biblical context nightmare.

There is no nightmare contained in what Paul wrote. In saying we establish the law, he is saying that we affirm the reliability of the law's record. This same author refers to that same record contained in the Law (the Genesis account) to affirm righteousness imputed by faith in God's promises, and not by feigned actions to the Sinai covenant that God concluded all the recipients disobedient to (Romans 11:32, Jeremiah 31:32, Hebrews 8:9).

Romans 4:20-25
He (Abraham) did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.​

This is the lesson learned from the law, and this lesson comes from 430 years before the Ten Commandments existed.

I would invite people reading this to just look in your own Bibles, do some comparisons with your Strong's numbers, and examine the two words in the context of Romans 3:31. When we go along with the errant theology of saying the ten commandments are the covenant, rather than the object of the covenant, we cannot support using "covenant" in place of "law" in Romans 3:31 If you could ever explain why I am so wrong on this point, there are a lot of other reasons why the old covenant has to be looked at as an agreement about the ten commandments; but not being the ten commandments themselves.

Replacing the Genesis account that is quoted to identify the "law" addressed in Romans 3:31 with the covenant that didn't yet exist is poor exegesis. What you have done is totally ignore the law that is quoted, just as you have when the law is identified in the same manner in Romans 7:6-7.

The people testified that they would abide by everything God told them (Exodus 19:8). The narrative then proceeds to instruct those people to assemble at the base of Mount Sinai to hear the covenant. Moses recounts the experience in Deuteronomy 4.

11 “Then you came near and stood at the foot of the mountain, and the mountain burned with fire to the midst of heaven, with darkness, cloud, and thick darkness.
12 And the LORD spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of the words, but saw no form; you only heard a voice.
13 So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.
14 And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that you might observe them in the land which you cross over to possess.​

Solomon testified that the covenant was contained inside the ark of the covenant in 2 Chronicles 6:11:

So the LORD has fulfilled His word which He spoke, and I have filled the position of my father David, and sit on the throne of Israel, as the LORD promised; and I have built the temple for the name of the LORD God of Israel. And there I have put the ark, in which is the covenant of the LORD which He made with the children of Israel.”​

There were no people or "their agreement" inside the ark of the covenant. Only Aaron's rod, the pot of manna, and the tablets of stone Moses called the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

Over and over you choose to reinvent the meaning of a lone verse that depends on the context it comes from to identify the nouns that it uses. That change in meaning you arrived at based on a sound-bite is contradictory to the context Romans 3:31 comes from, and wholly inconsistent with the narrative's message both before and after this verse.

Multiple citations and quotes have been provided to you that show conclusively that the law mediated by Moses is the covenant from Mount Sinai, and that covenant was comprised of the Ten Commandments inscribed onto tablets of stone and written into the book of the law.

You have their testimony, which stands as contrary to your opinion.

 

[Eagle55]

There is no nightmare contained in what Paul wrote. In saying we establish the law, he is saying that we affirm the reliability of the law's record. This same author refers to that same record contained in the Law (the Genesis account) to affirm righteousness imputed by faith in God's promises, and not by feigned actions to the Sinai covenant that God concluded all the recipients disobedient to (Romans 11:32, Jeremiah 31:32, Hebrews 8:9).

But there is a nightmare in the way you are re-packaging the scriptures here. Yes, you are correct, I did a typo and it was Romans 4:3 that I was talking about. No one has questioned "the reliability of the law" (meaning the old testament, in this case). Romans 3:31 is not talking about the entire old testament. If it is, then you are teaching that it is OK to change whatever portions of scripture we want to make it fit our doctrine. The text doesn't even say "the law and the prophets;" it says "the law." You know as well as I do that this is all about being saved by the law, or being saved by grace. And, incidentally, the old testament is filled with examples of grace. But again; no matter what you say the law is, if you take Romans 3:31 and replace "law" with "covenant" you have some real problems in justifying that from scripture. You have said yourself that the law is the same as the old covenant.

Multiple citations and quotes have been provided to you that show conclusively that the law mediated by Moses is the covenant from Mount Sinai, and that covenant was comprised of the Ten Commandments inscribed onto tablets of stone and written into the book of the law.

You have their testimony, which stands as contrary to your opinion.

"multiple citations" sure make some people proud of themselves, but often it has nothing to do with the truth of the matter. There is not one single of the ten commandments that is not for Christians today. Each of them can be found throughout the Bible, from one end to the other. Trying to second-guess scripture and say this is for Christians, this isn't and who needs that, it is all wrong to say we don't need the ten commandments. Maybe, because more church people are teaching that, we can blame them for the increasing lawlessness that abounds almost everywhere. It's almost like people in the world are starting to believe Christians who preach against the law. 'Course, you may not like those "soundbites," guess you can always plug your ears again, eh?

 

[VictorC]

But there is a nightmare in the way you are re-packaging the scriptures here. Yes, you are correct, I did a typo and it was Romans 4:3 that I was talking about. No one has questioned "the reliability of the law" (meaning the old testament, in this case). Romans 3:31 is not talking about the entire old testament. If it is, then you are teaching that it is OK to change whatever portions of scripture we want to make it fit our doctrine. The text doesn't even say "the law and the prophets;" it says "the law." You know as well as I do that this is all about being saved by the law, or being saved by grace. And, incidentally, the old testament is filled with examples of grace. But again; no matter what you say the law is, if you take Romans 3:31 and replace "law" with "covenant" you have some real problems in justifying that from scripture. You have said yourself that the law is the same as the old covenant.

• Romans 3:31 is not addressing the entire Tanaukh; it is addressing the Torah, otherwise known in many circles as the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses.
• Romans 4:3 then quotes Genesis 15:6 from the same law immediately on the heels of Romans 3:31.

How you can equate this quote with the covenant law that came 430 years later is beyond me. The first, or old covenant was the law that came from Mount Sinai, and it is that first covenant that is replaced according to Hebrews 8:9 when it is defined as "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". That is a reference to Sinai. That law mediated by Moses was the old covenant.

It is that same covenant Paul concludes abolished when he identifies it as "written and engraved on stones" in 2 Corinthians 3, an obvious reference to the book of the law and the tablets of stone with Israel's covenant from Mount Sinai. It is that same covenant Paul instructs us to cast off, when he defines the bondwoman in Galatians 4:31 as "these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage" in verse 24 of the same passage. There was only one covenant that came from Mount Sinai, and you're simply in denial at this juncture.

"multiple citations" sure make some people proud of themselves, but often it has nothing to do with the truth of the matter. There is not one single of the ten commandments that is not for Christians today. Each of them can be found throughout the Bible, from one end to the other. Trying to second-guess scripture and say this is for Christians, this isn't and who needs that, it is all wrong to say we don't need the ten commandments. Maybe, because more church people are teaching that, we can blame them for the increasing lawlessness that abounds almost everywhere. It's almost like people in the world are starting to believe Christians who preach against the law. 'Course, you may not like those "soundbites," guess you can always plug your ears again, eh?

There is not one passage of Scripture you rely on for your opinion. You know the law's testimony from all those citations and quotes that you have regarded with disdain, and yet you replaced them anyway.

 

[Eagle55]

• Romans 3:31 is not addressing the entire Tanaukh; it is addressing the Torah, otherwise known in many circles as the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses.
• Romans 4:3 then quotes Genesis 15:6 from the same law immediately on the heels of Romans 3:31.

How you can equate this quote with the covenant law that came 430 years later is beyond me. The first, or old covenant was the law that came from Mount Sinai, and it is that first covenant that is replaced according to Hebrews 8:9 when it is defined as "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". That is a reference to Sinai. That law mediated by Moses was the old covenant.

It is that same covenant Paul concludes abolished when he identifies it as "written and engraved on stones", an obvious reference to the book of the law and the tablets of stone with Israel's covenant from Mount Sinai. It is that same covenant Paul instructs us to cast off, when he defines the bondwoman in Galatians 4:31 as "these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage" in verse 24 of the same passage. There was only one covenant that came from Mount Sinai, and you're simply in denial at this juncture.

There is not one passage of Scripture you rely on for your opinion. You know the law's testimony from all those citations and quotes that you have regarded with disdain, and yet you replaced them anyway.

So I am correct. You are wresting the scriptures to say that Christians do not need the ten commandments. You miss many other points of scripture in saying this, just based on one or two texts, which you keep repeating, at the expense of the rest of the Bible's view on God's law. One of the major reasons for lawlessness, I believe, is because Christian Churches now teach that we don't need it - even that God Himself cancelled it out! Wow!

In Hebrews 8:6-13 we are told that the new covenant is based upon "better promises." IF you were correct in what you are saying here; then you should be able to explain from the Bible where we can find even one "poor promise" in the ten commandments, or one "better" one anywhere in the Bible. You will never do it in a million years no matter how much you make fun of me, no matter how you wrest Paul's writings to try and say Jesus did away with the ten commandments. Actually, quite contrary to what YOU say Paul says, Paul fully understands the subject to say that the "new covenant" cannot possibly be the ten commandments: Paul declares that the ten commandments were very good, and NOT optional "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth." Ephesians 6:1-3.

This declaration alone is sufficient to show that the writer of Hebrews was not charging the moral law with any weak promises. The Old Covenant, whatever else it might be, could never be the Ten Commandments. Paul was definitely referring to the ten commandments here.

 

[VictorC]

So I am correct. You are wresting the scriptures to say that Christians do not need the ten commandments.

Do you realize this is what you have been charged with? There was a important point that you ignored in my post.
The law Romans 3:31 refers to is identified by quoting Genesis 15:6.
How you can equate this quote with the covenant law that came 430 years later is beyond me.
Are you so committed to replace Scripture with your preclusions that you simply can't respond to this? There is simply no way you can claim that Romans 3:31 addresses the Ten Commandments.

You miss many other points of scripture in saying this, just based on one or two texts, which you keep repeating, at the expense of the rest of the Bible's view on God's law. One of the major reasons for lawlessness, I believe, is because Christian Churches now teach that we don't need it - even that God Himself cancelled it out! Wow!

What you believe is irreconcilable with Scripture concluding we have been delivered from the Ten Commandments and Jesus Christ took the Ten Commandments away. Why does Adventism claim a soteriology based on the old covenant God committed all disobedient to? The contrast between Christianity and the SDA church is the sole reason you can't understand what Christianity affirms.

In Hebrews 8:6-13 we are told that the new covenant is based upon "better promises." IF you were correct in what you are saying here; then you should be able to explain from the Bible where we can find even one "poor promise" in the ten commandments, or one "better" one anywhere in the Bible. You will never do it in a million years no matter how much you make fun of me, no matter how you wrest Paul's writings to try and say Jesus did away with the ten commandments. Actually, quite contrary to what YOU say Paul says, Paul fully understands the subject to say that the "new covenant" cannot possibly be the ten commandments: Paul declares that the ten commandments were very good, and NOT optional "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth." Ephesians 6:1-3.

This declaration alone is sufficient to show that the writer of Hebrews was not charging the moral law with any weak promises. The Old Covenant, whatever else it might be, could never be the Ten Commandments. Paul was definitely referring to the ten commandments here.

You do understand this was already refuted, don't you?

God also repeatedly told the children of Israel to "Be holy, for I am holy" (Leviticus 11:45), and Peter repeated this commandment in 1 Peter 1:13-16. It is used as an admonition to be obedient as children, in much the same tenor that Paul uses another commandment in Ephesians 6. Now don't forget that Ephesians 2:11-16 details the end of the law so that the Gentiles could be reconciled to God along with the children of Israel - and yet you would like us to believe that Ephesians contradicts itself.

Allow me to expand your comprehension.
An admonition to be holy isn't dictated to anyone who is already holy.
An appeal to obey your parents isn't issued to children who are already uniformly obedient.
In both cases, the law was violated by those it was reminded to, and if the law were still binding in the tenor it was issued in, these transgressions would mandate the death of all children. Add to this the fact that you're imposing an artificial division between Exodus 20/Deuteronomy 5 and Leviticus 11 that doesn't exist in the law.

If you truely wanted to convince anyone that the Ten Commandments and the book of the law didn't comprise the old covenant from Mount Sinai, then you would stop evading what I had posted before:

Moses knew that the Ten Commandments was the covenant, and he knew where that covenant came from:

Deuteronomy 9
9 "When I went up into the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant which the LORD made with you, then I stayed on the mountain forty days and forty nights. I neither ate bread nor drank water.
10 "Then the LORD delivered to me two tablets of stone written with the finger of God, and on them were all the words which the LORD had spoken to you on the mountain from the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly.
11 "And it came to pass, at the end of forty days and forty nights, that the LORD gave me the two tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant.​

I asked you where the covenant God made came from, and you dismissed it. This was the covenant from Mount Sinai, inscribed onto tables of stone, the Ten Commandments.

Solomon also identified the same tables of stone as the covenant:

2 Chronicles 6:11
"And there I have put the ark, in which is the covenant of the LORD which He made with the children of Israel."​

The Biblical definition of the covenant from Mount Sinai includes both the tables of stone with the Ten Commandments and the book of the law (Exodus 24:7). The tables of stone were placed inside the ark of the covenant, while the book of the law was placed outside the ark of the covenant to be a witness against the children of Israel (Deuteronomy 31:26) every seven years (Deuteronomy 31:10-11). Everywhere the ark went, the entire covenant went with it - consistent with the name given to the ark of the covenant.

Paul described the covenant from Mount Sinai as the bondwoman in Galatians 4:24, and then instructed us to cast off the bondwoman and her son in Galatians 4:30.

In each and every instance, you have chosen to redefine Biblical terms. You don't accept the covenant as the object that dictated God's terms of the Suzerainty agreement, even though your own theologians have accepted that term:

It has nothing in it of the nature of a bargain or a negotiated agreement. It is a disposition or arrangement which originates unilaterally with the superior party.​

The people who agreed to comply with the covenant didn't come from Mount Sinai. The only object that came from Mount Sinai was the tables of stone. Moses affixed the proper noun Ten Commandments to that object, and that object was placed into the ark of the covenant, and Solomon specified that the covenant was contained inside the ark. No people inside that ark, and neither is their agreement of compliance requisite to live and possess the land (Deuteronomy 30:15-16).

The only one who has made a claim that Scripture contradicts itself is you, and the only contradiction I can see is your opinion that has imposed your own definition to Biblical terms.

You have this weird notion that the Bible contradicts itself constantly, and doesn't have a common Source of Inspiration behind it. It is therefore of little wonder that you are forced to ignore vast passages and concentrate on single verses taken from their context. Even Hebrews is specific in identifying what it refers to as the first covenant (the Ten Commandments) and concludes that a new covenant made the first covenant (the Ten Commandments) obsolete, and were taken away in order to establish a new covenant. The only one committed to twisting Scripture in this conversation is you, and is the reason you deny the unity of the faith that was entrusted to us.

Ephesians 4:11-16
And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.​

Deception by omission and ignorance is easily identified, and it has been your practice in this thread. Is it any wonder that at least one recent post called the seventh-day Adventist church a cult?

 

[Eagle55]

Am I now supposed to shake in my boots because you have decided to deal the cult card? Nice "exegesis."

One thing you seem to be in love with in particular is to accuse me of "ignoring" something you said, or "refusing to answer." Again, nice "exegesis."

Do I use the same rules you are using, when I ask why you have not yet been able to produce even one "poor" promise in even one of the ten commandments? When you can answer that; then all your other "multiple quotes" will take on a much different direction.

But while you are trying to figure that out; I have another one for you. The second thing wrong with the Old Covenant was that it was "faulty". The first thing that I pointed out above is how that it had/has "poor" promises.

But the Bible says, "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second." Hebrews 8:7. Let me ask you another question Victor: Can you find a fault or a flaw in the handwriting of God for us please? Which of the ten commandments have this "fault" in them? The psalmist declared, "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul." Psalm 19:7. Paul wrote, "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." Romans 7:12. Does that sound like something weak and imperfect? No law could be perfect and faulty at the same time. It is apparent that the Old Covenant could not have been the Ten Commandments.
Show us ONE FAULT IN ONE COMMANDMENT please.

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[VictorC]

One of the major reasons for lawlessness, I believe, is because Christian Churches now teach that we don't need it - even that God Himself cancelled it out! Wow!

Let's review an earlier post in this thread, so that you can see Ellen's departure from the Gospel:

Ellen White is codified as Adventism's authority in their Fundamental Belief #18 (of 28 beliefs published by the church at this time). Here are some statement from Ellen White to give you a sense of Adventism's soteriology. Redemption remains a foreign concept to Adventism, and dismisses the purpose Jesus was incarnate, "to redeem those who were under the law" (Galatians 4:5):

It means eternal salvation to keep the Sabbath holy unto the Lord. God says: "Them that honor Me I will honor." 1 Samuel 2:30. {6T 356.4}

But if we turn aside from the fourth commandment, so positively given by God, to adopt the inventions of Satan, voiced and acted by men under his control, we cannot be saved. We cannot with safety receive his traditions and subtleties as truth. {RH, July 6, 1897 par. 4}

No one who disregards the fourth commandment, after becoming enlightened in regard to the claims of the Sabbath, can be held guiltless in the sight of God. {RH, July 6, 1897 par. 14}

All will be judged according to the light that has shone upon them. If they have light upon the Sabbath, they cannot be saved in rejecting that light.{HS 234.3}

As persons become convinced from the Scriptures that the claims of the fourth commandment are still binding, the question is often raised, Is it necessary in order to secure salvation that we keep the Sabbath? This is a question of grave importance. If the light has shone from the word of God, if the message has been presented to men, as it was to Pharaoh, and they refuse to heed that message, if they reject the light, they refuse to obey God, and cannot be saved in their disobedience. {RH, January 5, 1886 par. 2}

“God requires of all His subjects obedience, entire obedience to all His commandments. He demands now as ever perfect righteousness as the only title to heaven. Christ is our hope and our refuge. His righteousness is imputed only to the obedient!” (Review & Herald, Sept. 21, 1886)

"Christ does not lessen the claims of the law. In unmistakable language He presents obedience to it as the condition of eternal life—the same condition that was required of Adam before his Fall. The Lord expects no less of the soul now than He expected of man in Paradise, perfect obedience, unblemished righteousness. The requirement under the covenant of grace is just as broad as the requirement made in Eden—harmony with God’s law, which is holy, just, and good." (Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 391)

“He told them that he had been pleading with his Father, and had offered to give his life a ransom, and take the sentence of death upon himself, that through him man might find pardon; that through the merits of his blood, and obedience to the law of God, they could have the favor of God, and be brought into the beautiful garden, and eat of the fruit of the tree of life.” (1SP 45.1)

“Your only safety is in coming to Christ, and ceasing from sin this very moment. The sweet voice of mercy is sounding in your ears today, but who can tell if it will sound tomorrow?" (Signs of the Times, Aug. 29, 1892).

“Only by perfect obedience to the requirements of God's holy law can man be justified.” (Manuscript Releases, vol. 8, pp. 98-99)

"Not one of us will ever receive the seal of God while our characters have one spot or stain upon them. It is left with us to remedy the defects in our characters, to cleanse the soul temple of every defilement" (Testimonies, Vol. 5, p. 214).

“While God can be just, and yet justify the sinner through the merits of Christ, no man can cover his soul with the garments of Christ's righteousness while practicing known sins, or neglecting known duties” (1 Selected Messages, p. 366).

"To every one who surrenders fully to God is given the privilege of living without sin, in obedience to the law of heaven." "God requires of us perfect obedience. We are to purify ourselves, even as he is pure. By keeping his commandments, we are to reveal our love for the Supreme Ruler of the universe." (Review and Herald, September 27, 1906).

"The righteousness of God is absolute. This righteousness characterizes all His works, all His laws. As He is, so must His people be." (1 Selected Messages, p. 198)​

Compliance to the law God redeemed us from is the basis of Adventism's claim to eternal life: you need to stop sinning and keep the law God redeemed us from. That is a stark contrast to Galatians 4:30, telling us to cast off the bondwoman defined as the covenant from Mount Sinai (4:24), which was the ten commandments, "for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman". Those remaining unredeemed from the covenant from Mount Sinai don't have a valid claim to eternal life.

Mind you, the quotes from Ellen White are claiming that it is necessary to keep the law she never kept, and specify that it is necessary to keep the sabbath holy as a requisite for eternal life, even though she never once did so herself.

 

[VictorC]

Am I now supposed to shake in my boots because you have decided to deal the cult card? Nice "exegesis."

One thing you seem to be in love with in particular is to accuse me of "ignoring" something you said, or "refusing to answer." Again, nice "exegesis."

Do I use the same rules you are using, when I ask why you have not yet been able to produce even one "poor" promise in even one of the ten commandments? When you can answer that; then all your other "multiple quotes" will take on a much different direction.

You haven't demonstrated that you have complied with the Ten Commandments, and you haven't acknowledged the physical reason it isn't possible for you to. Feigning compliance while violating the covenant God concluded all disobedient to denigrates the Holiness of the covenant law that was designed to drive you to your Redeemer, and the mental gymnastics you need to perform have you committing adultery, which is another infraction against the covenant you merely give lipservice to.

It was Hairy Tic who called your sect a cult. The first 40 years of the Adventist pioneers would have them rejecting the Nicene Creed, which this forum uses as a minimal litmus test for orthodoxy. I include the soteriology a group employs, and the Adventist model is antithetical to Christianity. Adventism is a cult as far as I am concerned.

But while you are trying to figure that out; I have another one for you. The second thing wrong with the Old Covenant was that it was "faulty". The first thing that I pointed out above is how that it had/has "poor" promises.

But the Bible says, "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second." Hebrews 8:7. Let me ask you another question Victor: Can you find a fault or a flaw in the handwriting of God for us please? Which of the ten commandments have this "fault" in them? The psalmist declared, "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul." Psalm 19:7. Paul wrote, "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." Romans 7:12. Does that sound like something weak and imperfect? No law could be perfect and faulty at the same time. It is apparent that the Old Covenant could not have been the Ten Commandments.
Show us ONE FAULT IN ONE COMMANDMENT please.[/FONT]

Do you realize that this too has been addressed?

Kindly show me where Moses and Solomon were in error.

We already know that the law is perfect - and Paul goes a step further when he calls it holy.

Romans 7
1 ¶ Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?
2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.
4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another----to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.
5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death.
6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.
7 ¶ What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet."
8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead.
9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me.
12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.
13 Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful.
14 ¶ For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.​

We know that the law is holy and good.
We already know that the law is lethal to everyone who is not holy and good.
The author of this epistle admits he is as carnal as we are in the last verse I quoted. This author also explains how we have been delivered from the law, and then identifies that law by quoting You shall not covet from it. That quote is found only in Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21 in the Ten Commandments.

Go back and review verse 3.
Claiming to be bound to two husbands is committing adultery.
Verse 6 is plain in showing that it was the law that kept the recipients, and it wasn't the recipients who kept the law. That same theme is repeated in Galatians 3:

21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.
22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed.
24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.​

You're being kept bound to another husband designed to drive you to faith in our Redeemer, and you're committing adultery in claiming to retain it. Let me remind you that the following chapter addresses the covenant from Mount Sinai, which we have already learned was the Ten Commandments and the book of the law. Our instruction is to cast off that covenant, for those retained by it will not be heirs with Jesus Christ.

 

[VictorC]

Show us ONE FAULT IN ONE COMMANDMENT please.

Red herring alert.
There was a important point that you continue to ignore in my post.
The law Romans 3:31 refers to is identified by quoting Genesis 15:6.
How you can equate this quote with the covenant law that came 430 years later is beyond me.
Are you so committed to replace Scripture with your preclusions that you simply can't respond to this? There is simply no way you can claim that Romans 3:31 addresses the Ten Commandments.

 

[Eagle55]

It is unfortunate that you see a need to resort to the very kind of cut and paste that you accuse others of doing; it certainly is an excellent way to evade the two questions I asked you. Should I name the web site where you got this from? I would be happy to discuss Ellen White in another thread, dealing specifically with her, or something she wrote; however, this topic has turned into a discussion about the law being, or not being equal to the old covenant.

So far, using scripture only; I have pointed out from Hebrews which talks about the old covenant being based on poor promises, and how it was faulty. So how can you say; if you agree the commandments are "holy, just, and good," that they must be that "old covenant" which was "faulty" and based on "poor promises," and something that we need to be delivered from? What you say makes no sense. How can something be both faulty and perfect at the same time?

You make a very poor case for your contentions when you start the orotund dogma of "forum rules" in a desperate attempt to make me look "wrong." When you can just present a plain, "thus saith the Lord," without all your lost baggage of cult sites and anti-Adventists, then what you say would be more believable. You keep trying to open up new fields instead of dealing with current points being made. Forget trying to be an Ellen Whiter, just stick to the Bible. That's all I am interested in discussing.

Many people have failed to see that there was more than one covenant involved at Mt. Sinai. God called Moses up into the mountain before He gave the law and proposed a covenant between Him and His people: "And Moses went up unto God, and the Lord called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; ... if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me ... an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel." Exodus 19:3-6.

Notice how God asked Moses to present His offer to the people. Here are all the elements of a true covenant. Conditions and promises are laid down for both sides. If the children of Israel accept God's proposal, a covenant will be established. How did they respond to the divine offer? "And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the Lord commanded him. And all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord." Exodus 19:7, 8.

Just as soon as that answer went back to God, the basis for the Old Covenant was set up. But before it could go into formal operation there had to be a sealing or ratifying of the pact. This ritualistic service involved the sprinkling of the blood of an ox on the people and is described in Exodus 24:4-8: "And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. And he sent young men of the children of Israel which ... sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord. And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words."

Again we are reminded that this covenant was not the law itself but was made "concerning all these words." The Ten Commandments were the basis for the agreement. The people promised to keep that law, and God promised to bless them in return. The crucial weakness in the whole arrangement revolved around the way Israel promised. There was no suggestion that they could not fully conform to every requirement of God. Neither was there any application for divine assistance. "We can do it," they insisted. Here is a perfect example of leaning on the flesh and trusting human strength. The words are filled with self-confidence. "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient."

Were they able to keep that promise? In spite of their repeated assurances, they miserably broke their word before Moses could even get off the mountain with the tables of stone. Now we begin to see where the poor promises lay in the Old Covenant!

The book of Hebrews begins to unfold. There God is reported as "finding fault with them." Hebrews 8:8. He said, "Because they continued not in my covenant ... I regarded them not." Verse 9. The blame is placed squarely upon the human side of the mutual pact. Thus, we can see exactly why Paul wrote as he did about this Old Covenant in Hebrews 8. It did gender to bondage, it proved faulty, had poor promises, and vanished away - all because the people failed to obey their part of the agreement.

Putting all these things together we can see why a new covenant was desperately needed, which would have better promises. How were the New Covenant promises better? Because God made them, and they guaranteed successful obedience through His strength alone. "I will put my laws into their mind ... I will be to them a God ... I will be merciful to their unrighteousness and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more." Hebrews 8:10-12.

How was the New Covenant ratified? In the same manner that the Old was confirmed - by the shedding of blood. But instead of an ox having to shed its blood, the sinless Son of God would provide the blood of sprinkling: "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, Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is well-pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ." Hebrews 13:20, 21.

What a contrast to the weak promises of the flesh made by Israel at Sinai. Instead of the people's "we will do," God's New Covenant promise is to "make you perfect in every good work ... working in you." It is no longer human effort. It is not so much you working, but Him "working in you." And how is this power made available? "Through the blood of the everlasting covenant." Because of what Jesus did on the cross.

 

[VictorC]

It is unfortunate that you see a need to resort to the very kind of cut and paste that you accuse others of doing; it certainly is an excellent way to evade the two questions I asked you. Should I name the web site where you got this from?

Yes, you should!
Everything I posted is my own work - I'm repeating my own posts that you refuse to acknowledge!

I would be happy to discuss Ellen White in another thread, dealing specifically with her, or something she wrote; however, this topic has turned into a discussion about the law being, or not being equal to the old covenant.

It has been more than that, but it seems that you're unable to acknowledge what Scripture attests to. It has been probably a dozen times that I have shown this to you, and you continue to relegate the testimony of Moses, Solomon, and Paul to abject dismissal. That reveals a dedication to an agenda that has departed from the truth.

If you truely wanted to convince anyone that the Ten Commandments and the book of the law didn't comprise the old covenant from Mount Sinai, then you would stop evading what I had posted before:

Moses knew that the Ten Commandments was the covenant, and he knew where that covenant came from:

Deuteronomy 9
9 "When I went up into the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant which the LORD made with you, then I stayed on the mountain forty days and forty nights. I neither ate bread nor drank water.
10 "Then the LORD delivered to me two tablets of stone written with the finger of God, and on them were all the words which the LORD had spoken to you on the mountain from the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly.
11 "And it came to pass, at the end of forty days and forty nights, that the LORD gave me the two tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant.​

I asked you where the covenant God made came from, and you dismissed it. This was the covenant from Mount Sinai, inscribed onto tables of stone, the Ten Commandments.

Solomon also identified the same tables of stone as the covenant:

2 Chronicles 6:11
"And there I have put the ark, in which is the covenant of the LORD which He made with the children of Israel."​

The Biblical definition of the covenant from Mount Sinai includes both the tables of stone with the Ten Commandments and the book of the law (Exodus 24:7). The tables of stone were placed inside the ark of the covenant, while the book of the law was placed outside the ark of the covenant to be a witness against the children of Israel (Deuteronomy 31:26) every seven years (Deuteronomy 31:10-11). Everywhere the ark went, the entire covenant went with it - consistent with the name given to the ark of the covenant.

Paul described the covenant from Mount Sinai as the bondwoman in Galatians 4:24, and then instructed us to cast off the bondwoman and her son in Galatians 4:30.

In each and every instance, you have chosen to redefine Biblical terms. You don't accept the covenant as the object that dictated God's terms of the Suzerainty agreement, even though your own theologians have accepted that term:

It has nothing in it of the nature of a bargain or a negotiated agreement. It is a disposition or arrangement which originates unilaterally with the superior party.​

The people who agreed to comply with the covenant didn't come from Mount Sinai. The only object that came from Mount Sinai was the tables of stone. Moses affixed the proper noun Ten Commandments to that object, and that object was placed into the ark of the covenant, and Solomon specified that the covenant was contained inside the ark. No people inside that ark, and neither is their agreement of compliance requisite to live and possess the land (Deuteronomy 30:15-16).

I expect to see a response from you that acknowledges this testimony from Scripture, instead of continuing to ignore it.

So far, using scripture only; I have pointed out from Hebrews which talks about the old covenant being based on poor promises, and how it was faulty. So how can you say; if you agree the commandments are "holy, just, and good," that they must be that "old covenant" which was "faulty" and based on "poor promises," and something that we need to be delivered from? What you say makes no sense. How can something be both faulty and perfect at the same time?

That was answered too.
You're not holy, hence you violated the covenant conveyed from Mount Sinai and broke it.
The better promises are found only in the demise of Israel's covenant with death:

Hebrews 7
18 For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness,
19 for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.​

You make a very poor case for your contentions when you start the orotund dogma of "forum rules" in a desperate attempt to make me look "wrong." When you can just present a plain, "thus saith the Lord," without all your lost baggage of cult sites and anti-Adventists, then what you say would be more believable. You keep trying to open up new fields instead of dealing with current points being made. Forget trying to be an Ellen Whiter, just stick to the Bible. That's all I am interested in discussing.

So far your track record concerning acceptance of the Bible has not been good. And, you have nothing to back up your desperate claim that there is some "anti-Adventist" or "cult" website I depend on for the Scriptures shown to you. BTW, have you ever considered the reality that anti-Adventist websites are usually authored by Christians who know a lot more about Adventism than you do? Do you actually have a valid reason to reject them as you do?

Many people have failed to see that there was more than one covenant involved at Mt. Sinai.

You just relegated Paul's account to a lie when he referred to "the one from Mount Sinai" in Galatians 4:24.

Notice how God asked Moses to present His offer to the people. Here are all the elements of a true covenant. Conditions and promises are laid down for both sides.

And now you consider seventh-day Adventists to be liars when they wrote in Present Truth Magazine, which is a SDA publication!

While some covenants between human parties are like negotiated agreements, God's covenant is more like a suzerainty covenant. It has nothing in it of the nature of a bargain or a negotiated agreement. It is a disposition or arrangement which originates unilaterally with the superior party. The inferior party may accept or reject the arrangement (for covenants generally imply reciprocity and a bilateral operation), but he cannot negotiate or alter the terms of the disposition in any way.​

If the children of Israel accept God's proposal, a covenant will be established. How did they respond to the divine offer? "And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the Lord commanded him. And all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord." Exodus 19:7, 8.

Just as soon as that answer went back to God, the basis for the Old Covenant was set up. But before it could go into formal operation there had to be a sealing or ratifying of the pact. This ritualistic service involved the sprinkling of the blood of an ox on the people and is described in Exodus 24:4-8: "And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. And he sent young men of the children of Israel which ... sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord. And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words."

All you can do is refer to the agreement to abide by the covenant that God called the children of Israel to assemble to hear, but you can't seem to get to the covenant itself. Moses recited this event in Deuteronomy 4, it was shown to you, and you continue to reject it.

Again we are reminded that this covenant was not the law itself but was made "concerning all these words."

And those Words was the Ten Commandments, the covenant from Mount Sinai, as Moses testified.

The Ten Commandments were the basis for the agreement. The people promised to keep that law, and God promised to bless them in return.

The covenant was conveyed with compliance requisite for life and possession of the promised land according to Deuteronomy 30:15-16. You simply don't know the law. Nor do you comply with it.

The book of Hebrews begins to unfold. There God is reported as "finding fault with them." Hebrews 8:8. He said, "Because they continued not in my covenant ... I regarded them not." Verse 9. The blame is placed squarely upon the human side of the mutual pact. Thus, we can see exactly why Paul wrote as he did about this Old Covenant in Hebrews 8. It did gender to bondage, it proved faulty, had poor promises, and vanished away - all because the people failed to obey their part of the agreement.

And Jeremiah 31:32 defined that covenant for you. Wave bye-bye to the Ten Commandments, concluded obsolete and taken away! They no longer have jurisdiction to render us "guilty before God (Romans 3:19) and impute sin to the transgressor, for "for where there is no law there is no transgression" (Romans 4:15)

Putting all these things together we can see why a new covenant was desperately needed, which would have better promises. How were the New Covenant promises better? Because God made them, and they guaranteed successful obedience through His strength alone. "I will put my laws into their mind ... I will be to them a God ... I will be merciful to their unrighteousness and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more." Hebrews 8:10-12.

And yet this same passage specifies that the old covenant was rendered obsolete, and the new covenant would not be according to the covenant made at Mount Sinai. Instead of affirming that God's "My law" is not from Sinai, you claimed that it is. You consider God's testimony to be a lie. You have no idea what God's "My law" is, and you are entrenched into a position to deny Scripture's testimony.

It is not so much you working, but Him "working in you." And how is this power made available? "Through the blood of the everlasting covenant." Because of what Jesus did on the cross.

Even your entrenchment in error isn't consistent when you affirm that He is in us, His Spirit, and not the created law that Romans 2:15 shows wasn't a new covenant promise anyway.

 

[Eagle55]

Gal 4:24 does not say there was only one covenant (as in quantity) at Sinai; but it is referring to "the one" as in type, or which one of the several covenants which I showed you from scripture. Looks like you are running out of comebacks.

 

[VictorC]

Gal 4:24 does not say there was only one covenant (as in quantity) at Sinai; but it is referring to "the one" as in type, or which one of the several covenants which I showed you from scripture. Looks like you are running out of comebacks.

Utterly false; you didn't show anything to alter Paul's testimony into something he didn't write, nor did you show anything other than the Ten Commandments that came from Mount Sinai. Now, where's that acknowledgement of Israel's covenant I'm waiting to see?

 

[Eagle55]

Utterly false; you didn't show anything to alter Paul's testimony into something he didn't write, nor did you show anything other than the Ten Commandments that came from Mount Sinai. Now, where's that acknowledgement of Israel's covenant I'm waiting to see?

I did not try to "alter Paul's testimony." This is just a matter of how should the passage be interpreted. The text specifically says "the one" and not "one" like you tried to say. Victor, it's alright with me if you want to hate Seventh-day Adventists, and make sport of me in the ways that you keep trying to do here; but what is not alright is to do it under the guise of "scholarly" Bible exegesis. Can you explain why what I said (which is what Bible said) is so wrong? It would not "undo Paul's testimony in any way. We have already seen in other Scripture examples how Paul saw the ten commandments as still binding for Christians today. There is even Bible evidence in Genesis and in Revelation of the ten commandments being in force there; but until you can examine earlier points made by me and say why they are wrong; I, for one, cannot accept any of your "utterly false" pronouncements, and it will be impossible for us to move on to other points, such as you keep trying to do here. Israel's covenant was an agreement ABOUT the ten commandments. It was not the ten commandments themselves. It's the Bible saying this - not me.

 

[VictorC]

I did not try to "alter Paul's testimony." This is just a matter of how should the passage be interpreted. The text specifically says "the one" and not "one" like you tried to say.

For your benefit, here is Galatians 4:24 as it is rendered in Young's Literal Translation:

which things are allegorized, for these are the two covenants: one, indeed, from mount Sinai, to servitude bringing forth, which is Hagar;​

The allegory the author penned is to compare the old covenant with the new covenant. There is only one from Mount Sinai.

Victor, it's alright with me if you want to hate Seventh-day Adventists, and make sport of me in the ways that you keep trying to do here; but what is not alright is to do it under the guise of "scholarly" Bible exegesis.

This isn't germane to your inability to support the ideas you depend on from the Bible.

Can you explain why what I said (which is what Bible said) is so wrong? It would not "undo Paul's testimony in any way. We have already seen in other Scripture examples how Paul saw the ten commandments as still binding for Christians today.

In each case where lessons are gleaned from the law, they are presented in the tenor of encouragement to a people who aren't compliant with the law. This is not within the legal definition of "binding", and we aren't placed under the law's jurisdiction that permits it to impute sin by our transgressions any longer. Concentrating on one verse and assuming it nullifies other passages written by the same author that clearly demonstrate our redemption from the law God concluded all to be disobedient to is contradictory, and you're unable to reconcile these contradictions. Suggesting that it is only the Ten Commandments when the same use of these examples would place us squarely under the requirements codified in Leviticus is also contradictory.

There is even Bible evidence in Genesis and in Revelation of the ten commandments being in force there

You know this contradicts Moses when he testified that the Ten Commandments didn't exist prior to his own generation in Deuteronomy 5, and John documented the commandments of God - and they aren't from the Ten Commandments.

but until you can examine earlier points made by me and say why they are wrong; I, for one, cannot accept any of your "utterly false" pronouncements, and it will be impossible for us to move on to other points, such as you keep trying to do here. Israel's covenant was an agreement ABOUT the ten commandments. It was not the ten commandments themselves.

What you rambled on about were the people's acceptance to abide by what God dictated to them in the assembly at Horeb. None of those events are at nor from Mount Sinai.

It's the Bible saying this - not me.

The Bible clearly states that the Ten Commandments were the covenant from Mount Sinai, or else it states that the teblets of stone contained the Words of the covenant that was from Mount Sinai.

What you're saying is unrelated to Mount Sinai, and you have made zero attempt to reconcile your contradictions with Moses or Solomon.

 

[Eagle55]

For your benefit, here is Galatians 4:24 as it is rendered in Young's Literal Translation:

which things are allegorized, for these are the two covenants: one, indeed, from mount Sinai, to servitude bringing forth, which is Hagar;​

The allegory the author penned is to compare the old covenant with the new covenant. There is only one from Mount Sinai.

How can you say that without taking into account the other covenants I showed from scripture?

You know this contradicts Moses when he testified that the Ten Commandments didn't exist prior to his own generation in Deuteronomy 5, and John documented the commandments of God - and they aren't from the Ten Commandments.

What you rambled on about were the people's acceptance to abide by what God dictated to them in the assembly at Horeb. None of those events are at nor from Mount Sinai.

The very heart and soul of the new covenant is conversion, and what that conversion leads to. Obedience to God is made possible by the writing of God's law on the heart. Through spiritual regeneration the mind and heart are transformed. Christ actually enters into the life of the believer and imparts His own strength for obedience. By partaking of the divine nature, the weakest human being begins to live the very life of Jesus Christ, manifesting His victory, and crucifying the flesh.

Paul describes that transaction this way: "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Romans 8:3, 4.

The word for righteousness is "dikaima," meaning "just requirement" of the law. In other words, because of Jesus' sinless life in the flesh, the requirement of the law can be fulfilled in us. He overcame sin in the same kind of body we have, so that He could impart that victory to us. He will actually live out His own holy life of separation from sin in our earthly bodies if we will permit Him to do so. This is the New Covenant promise for every believing, trusting child of God. And it is absolutely the only way that anyone can meet the requirements of the law: "Christ in you, the hope of glory." Colossians 1:27. "The life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." Galatians 2:20.

It is very important for us to understand that the New Covenant law written on the heart is exactly the same law that was graven on the stone. Those great spiritual principles reflect the very character of God, and form the basis for His government. The difference is not in the law but in the ministration of the law. Written only upon the tables of stone, they can only condemn and minister death, "because the carnal mind ... is not subject to the law of God." Romans 8:7. Received into the heart which has been transformed by the converting grace of Christ, the same law becomes a delight. The beloved John declared, "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous." 1 John 5:3. Not only is the law not grievous for the Spirit-filled child of God, but obedience becomes a joyful possibility. The psalmist wrote, "I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart." Psalms 40:8.

 

[VictorC]

How can you say that without taking into account the other covenants I showed from scripture?

You didn't show any other "covenant" that came from Mount Sinai.

It is very important for us to understand that the New Covenant law written on the heart is exactly the same law that was graven on the stone.

No, it is only important for SDA's and some other heterodox sects to suggest this contention in deference for Jeremiah's prophecy and the author of Hebrews analysis of it. This is so that you can accept Ellen White's "law of love" and her unBiblical assertion that the Ten Commandments -but not the entire law- conveyed a transcript of God's character.

You simply refuse to address Moses and Solomon, whom you have dismissed as testimony unworthy of consideration.

 

[Eagle55]

You didn't show any other "covenant" that came from Mount Sinai.

Many people have failed to see that there was more than one covenant involved at Mt. Sinai. God called Moses up into the mountain before He gave the law and proposed a covenant between Him and His people: "And Moses went up unto God, and the Lord called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; ... if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me ... an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel." Exodus 19:3-6.

Notice how God asked Moses to present His offer to the people. Here are all the elements of a true covenant. Conditions and promises are laid down for both sides.

To deny that this incident in scripture reflects one of many covenants between God and His people is to deny scripture.

No, it is only important for SDA's and some other heterodox sects to suggest this contention in deference for Jeremiah's prophecy and the author of Hebrews analysis of it. This is so that you can accept Ellen White's "law of love" and her unBiblical assertion that the Ten Commandments -but not the entire law- conveyed a transcript of God's character.

Well, that's a pretty fancy way of denying what Jeremiah has written, that God has promised. Don't use Ellen White for your excuse. God has promised to write His law on our hearts. Do you deny this scripture?

You simply refuse to address Moses and Solomon, whom you have dismissed as testimony unworthy of consideration.

As I already mentioned, because you are running out of new answers, you follow the anti-Adventist cult crowds in disparaging us in any way that enters into your head. I did not "refuse" to answer anything. Moses and Solomon have no authority to negate, lessen, or to change God's Word into something that it is not.

The "book of the covenant" referred to in Exodus 24:4-8 was referenced to in the sense of containing the ten commandments; which the covenant (agreement) between God and His people "concerning all these words," was about, being manifested by "we will do." The Old Covenant was just an agreement about the commandments. In the New Covenant, again an agreement about the ten commandments, instead of God allowing the people to say "we will do," God said "I will do." And what did He say he would do? He said He would write His law on our hearts. So that is the "new covenant." Another agreement between God and His people about His commandments. Are you choosing to disagree with this covenant?

 

[VictorC]

To deny that this incident in scripture reflects one of many covenants between God and His people is to deny scripture.

What you describe from Exodus 19 is God's promise to take the children of Israel as His own and treasure them above all others:

Exodus 19:5
Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine.​

The narrative goes on to tell the people to assemble 3 days later after consecrating themselves, abstaining from relations with their wives, and washing their clothes, when God would come down to Mount Sinai and speak to them. At this point God hasn't issued His covenant to the children of Israel. That came three days later, the "if-then" tenor of compliance the verse quoted above uses to refer to an event in the future.

Moreover, there is nothing in Exodus 19's account that came from Mount Sinai, with the exception of Moses himself. There is no agreement from Mount Sinai depicted here made by anyone, and the people themselves were prohibited from going onto the mountain:

Exodus 19:12
You shall set bounds for the people all around, saying, `Take heed to yourselves that you do not go up to the mountain or touch its base. Whoever touches the mountain shall surely be put to death.​

There is nothing depicted here that came from Mount Sinai in the form of a covenant. That is Scripture's testimony.

Well, that's a pretty fancy way of denying what Jeremiah has written, that God has promised. Don't use Ellen White for your excuse. God has promised to write His law on our hearts.

What Jeremiah wrote was God's promise to write His "My law" into the hearts and minds of His people as a new covenant promise. Not the law according to the covenant made at Mount Sinai. Not a law that doesn't give the people an internalized knowledge of the Creator. I am among those who affirm what Jeremiah prophesied, and use the same pattern that the author of Hebrews uses in concluding that a new covenant makes the first covenant obsolete, and I look at "My law" as a possessive pronoun to identify God Himself, then only Authority that the King Himself is subject to - consistent with the lesson Jesus taught Peter describing the King's sovereignty over the law He created in Matthew 17:24-26.

Meanwhile, you're still looking to Mount Sinai as the only possible law this could refer to, when it was specifically disqualified by God speaking through Jeremiah himself. To ignore this qualification is to deny Scripture, and I for one know what Ellen White conveyed to the SDA church in deference to Jeremiah's prophecy and in ignorance of the inspired explanation provided by the author of Hebrews.

As I already mentioned, because you are running out of new answers, you follow the anti-Adventist cult crowds in disparaging us in any way that enters into your head. I did not "refuse" to answer anything.

You promised to back up your claim to document some external anti-Adventist website I use for the material I write by my own hand. That has been a hollow promise from you.

Moses and Solomon have no authority to negate, lessen, or to change God's Word into something that it is not.

Here is the foundation of your whole disagreement.

Moses was the author of the account you appealed to in Exodus 19.
You seem to have forgotten that. Moses and Solomon's account are the Word of God!
Moses was the one who specified what the covenant from Mount Sinai was:

Exodus 34
1 And the LORD said to Moses, "Cut two tablets of stone like the first ones, and I will write on these tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you broke.
2 "So be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning to Mount Sinai, and present yourself to Me there on the top of the mountain.
...
27 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write these words, for according to the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel."
28 So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.
29 Now it was so, when Moses came down from Mount Sinai (and the two tablets of the Testimony were in Moses' hand when he came down from the mountain), that Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone while he talked with Him.​

There are two objects that came from down from Mount Sinai.

• Moses
• Tablets of stone with the covenant, called the Ten Commandments

These are the only possible candidates for the covenant from Mount Sinai that Paul refers to in Galatians 4:24.
Moses himself directed attention away from himself when he identified what the covenant from Mount Sinai was:

Deuteronomy 4
11 "Then you came near and stood at the foot of the mountain, and the mountain burned with fire to the midst of heaven, with darkness, cloud, and thick darkness.
12 "And the LORD spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of the words, but saw no form; you only heard a voice.
13 "So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.
14 "And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that you might observe them in the land which you cross over to possess.​

Plain as day: the covenant from Mount Sinai was the Ten Commandments.

Do you deny this scripture?

You admitted that you disregarded inspired Scripture, and inconsistently twisted what Moses wrote and then rejected plain statements made by Moses. You have no grounds to divert your own admitted rejection of Scripture onto other members of the forum.

The "book of the covenant" referred to in Exodus 24:4-8 was referenced to in the sense of containing the ten commandments; which the covenant (agreement) between God and His people "concerning all these words," was about, being manifested by "we will do." The Old Covenant was just an agreement about the commandments.

And here you admit that the covenant was contained in the book of the law, which is from where we read the Ten Commandments from, and then deflect attention away by claiming an agreement, made to abide by nothing because you don't accept the object the people agreed to abide by. That is not a covenant in the English usage, and is wholly incompatible with the Suzerainty covenant that was made in an ancient culture that knew what a covenant was.

In the New Covenant, again an agreement about the ten commandments, instead of God allowing the people to say "we will do," God said "I will do." And what did He say he would do? He said He would write His law on our hearts. So that is the "new covenant." Another agreement between God and His people about His commandments. Are you choosing to disagree with this covenant?

The only one who is inconsistent with Scripture is you in this conversation.
And, the wholesale rejection of Scripture was made by you.