<![CDATA[Forums - All Forums]]> http://1888msc.org/forum/ Fri, 30 Jul 2010 01:58:06 -0400 MyBB <![CDATA[What is Justification?]]> http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=43 Fri, 28 May 2010 11:51:31 -0400 hfsturges http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=43
Quote: . . . 16 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Galatians 2:16, KJV).


On the basis of this verse, are we "justified by faith" or do we by faith "believe that Jesus has already justified us?"

The 1888MSC teaches the first, which is a second step that follows the legal justification given to all men through the Cross of Christ. But the language (syntax) leaves open that the second is true. In which ALL justification is by definition legal; and "experiential justification" that follows is actually sanctification.
.................................................
Here are some definitions:

In Christian theology, justification is God's act of declaring or making a sinner righteous before God. The concept of justification occurs in many books of the Old and New Testaments.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_(theology)

Justification noun
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/justification
1. reasonable grounds for complaint, defence, etc.
2. the act of justifying; proof, vindication, or exculpation
3. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology)
. . . a. the act of justifying
. . . b. the process of being justified or the condition of having been justified
4. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) Also called justification by faith. Protestant theology; the doctrine that God vindicates only those who repent and believe in Jesus

Justification definition, noun
http://www.yourdictionary.com/justification
. . . 1. a justifying or being justified
. . . 2. a fact that justifies or vindicates
. . . 3. Christian Theology: the state or condition, necessary for salvation, of being blameless or absolved of the guilt of sin

Justification
http://www.brainyquote.com/words/ju/just...81982.html
• The act of justifying or the state of being justified; a showing or proving to be just or conformable to law, justice, right, or duty; defense; vindication; support; as, arguments in justification of the prisoner's conduct; his disobedience admits justification.
• The showing in court of a sufficient lawful reason why a party charged or accused did that for which he is called to answer.
• The act of justifying, or the state of being justified, in respect to God's requirements.

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: Justification
http://www.answers.com/topic/justification
In Christian theology, the passage of an individual from sin to a state of grace. Some theologians use the term to refer to the act of God in extending grace to the sinner, while others use it to define the change in the condition of a sinner who has received grace. St. Paul used the term to explain how people moved from sin to grace through the death and resurrection of Jesus and not through any human effort. St. Augustine saw it as an act of God that makes sinners righteous, while Martin Luther stressed justification through faith alone.]]>
Quote: . . . 16 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Galatians 2:16, KJV).


On the basis of this verse, are we "justified by faith" or do we by faith "believe that Jesus has already justified us?"

The 1888MSC teaches the first, which is a second step that follows the legal justification given to all men through the Cross of Christ. But the language (syntax) leaves open that the second is true. In which ALL justification is by definition legal; and "experiential justification" that follows is actually sanctification.
.................................................
Here are some definitions:

In Christian theology, justification is God's act of declaring or making a sinner righteous before God. The concept of justification occurs in many books of the Old and New Testaments.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_(theology)

Justification noun
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/justification
1. reasonable grounds for complaint, defence, etc.
2. the act of justifying; proof, vindication, or exculpation
3. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology)
. . . a. the act of justifying
. . . b. the process of being justified or the condition of having been justified
4. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) Also called justification by faith. Protestant theology; the doctrine that God vindicates only those who repent and believe in Jesus

Justification definition, noun
http://www.yourdictionary.com/justification
. . . 1. a justifying or being justified
. . . 2. a fact that justifies or vindicates
. . . 3. Christian Theology: the state or condition, necessary for salvation, of being blameless or absolved of the guilt of sin

Justification
http://www.brainyquote.com/words/ju/just...81982.html
• The act of justifying or the state of being justified; a showing or proving to be just or conformable to law, justice, right, or duty; defense; vindication; support; as, arguments in justification of the prisoner's conduct; his disobedience admits justification.
• The showing in court of a sufficient lawful reason why a party charged or accused did that for which he is called to answer.
• The act of justifying, or the state of being justified, in respect to God's requirements.

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: Justification
http://www.answers.com/topic/justification
In Christian theology, the passage of an individual from sin to a state of grace. Some theologians use the term to refer to the act of God in extending grace to the sinner, while others use it to define the change in the condition of a sinner who has received grace. St. Paul used the term to explain how people moved from sin to grace through the death and resurrection of Jesus and not through any human effort. St. Augustine saw it as an act of God that makes sinners righteous, while Martin Luther stressed justification through faith alone.]]> <![CDATA[The Baker Letter]]> http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=42 Thu, 13 May 2010 12:37:03 -0400 georgee http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=42 Manuscript Releases, vol. 13, p. 13. The five paragraphs about Christ's nature start on page 17.

So far there are only tantalizing clues about what his error was. Probably the best idea comes from the letter itself. Baker seems to have been leaving the impression on minds that at some time in Jesus' life, he was just a human, "...such an one as ourselves..." That Baker seems to have been suggesting that there was a time when Jesus gave in to his sinful human propensities can be seen in her rebukes in two scalding sentences. Here are the two sentences and my comments from another thread:

George Wrote:
EGW Wrote:Sentence 1. "He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity."

If you think about it, this is a strange way to talk about an evil propensity. Usually they are thought of as constant companions, long term habitual problems. We don't usually think of them as being a momentary, or fleeting occurrence. But notice that her emphasis is on the possibility of sinning or falling, which are momentary events. She is saying that not for one moment did He slip and allow an evil propensity to rise up and overcome Him. When she says "in Him" I think she must mean manifested in His behavior. No evil propensity ever took over and manifested itself in His behavior.

EGW Wrote:Sentence 2. "Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption."

Here again corruption is normally a long term issue, and yet the way she phrases the whole sentence, especially the word "rested," gives the impression of a fleeting event. You can almost imagine her considering the variation "rested for a moment upon Christ." Again, the focus is clearly on performance or behavior.

This letter was discovered in the 1950's and, in the hands of a few of our leaders, has been twisted into a weapon that has done immeasurable damage to our church's understanding of the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Suddenly, there was a perceived limitation to how far Christ would go to save sinners. The word "propensity" loomed in our minds as something so strong that Christ Himself would not dare take it on. It was implied that the Champion of our salvation turned tail when the road got too rough.

Never before had we been confused about how a person is judged. We began to think that if Christ took into His human nature too many of our sinful defects, that because of the very presence of those defects He would become unholy. But no one is judged by their nature. It's how you behave in that nature--your thoughts and actions--that counts, and the same is true in Christ's case. The mere presence of defects would not have sullied Him. Jesus' record shows that no matter what was laid on Him, He did not break, He did not yield. He was victorious in all things. That is good news.

So what do we do about this letter, now that it is out of the bag? What was Baker's error exactly? Had he absorbed adoptionism? Was he recruited into Freemasonry? His problem was obviously quit unique because there is no indication that Ellen White ever referred to the letter again even though it sat in her files for twenty years of her life. That doesn't make sense if it was the seminal work on the nature of Christ that some would have us believe.

What are the events surrounding the discovery and publishing of the letter? What were the motives of the ones who were responsible?

The purpose of this thread is to help us come to grips with the damage that has been done by the misuse of this letter and begin repairing that damage.]]> Manuscript Releases, vol. 13, p. 13. The five paragraphs about Christ's nature start on page 17.

So far there are only tantalizing clues about what his error was. Probably the best idea comes from the letter itself. Baker seems to have been leaving the impression on minds that at some time in Jesus' life, he was just a human, "...such an one as ourselves..." That Baker seems to have been suggesting that there was a time when Jesus gave in to his sinful human propensities can be seen in her rebukes in two scalding sentences. Here are the two sentences and my comments from another thread:

George Wrote:
EGW Wrote:Sentence 1. "He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity."

If you think about it, this is a strange way to talk about an evil propensity. Usually they are thought of as constant companions, long term habitual problems. We don't usually think of them as being a momentary, or fleeting occurrence. But notice that her emphasis is on the possibility of sinning or falling, which are momentary events. She is saying that not for one moment did He slip and allow an evil propensity to rise up and overcome Him. When she says "in Him" I think she must mean manifested in His behavior. No evil propensity ever took over and manifested itself in His behavior.

EGW Wrote:Sentence 2. "Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption."

Here again corruption is normally a long term issue, and yet the way she phrases the whole sentence, especially the word "rested," gives the impression of a fleeting event. You can almost imagine her considering the variation "rested for a moment upon Christ." Again, the focus is clearly on performance or behavior.

This letter was discovered in the 1950's and, in the hands of a few of our leaders, has been twisted into a weapon that has done immeasurable damage to our church's understanding of the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Suddenly, there was a perceived limitation to how far Christ would go to save sinners. The word "propensity" loomed in our minds as something so strong that Christ Himself would not dare take it on. It was implied that the Champion of our salvation turned tail when the road got too rough.

Never before had we been confused about how a person is judged. We began to think that if Christ took into His human nature too many of our sinful defects, that because of the very presence of those defects He would become unholy. But no one is judged by their nature. It's how you behave in that nature--your thoughts and actions--that counts, and the same is true in Christ's case. The mere presence of defects would not have sullied Him. Jesus' record shows that no matter what was laid on Him, He did not break, He did not yield. He was victorious in all things. That is good news.

So what do we do about this letter, now that it is out of the bag? What was Baker's error exactly? Had he absorbed adoptionism? Was he recruited into Freemasonry? His problem was obviously quit unique because there is no indication that Ellen White ever referred to the letter again even though it sat in her files for twenty years of her life. That doesn't make sense if it was the seminal work on the nature of Christ that some would have us believe.

What are the events surrounding the discovery and publishing of the letter? What were the motives of the ones who were responsible?

The purpose of this thread is to help us come to grips with the damage that has been done by the misuse of this letter and begin repairing that damage.]]> <![CDATA[The Final Perversion]]> http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=39 Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:54:14 -0500 georgee http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=39
Of course the gospel has always had enemies, but these enemies are not only individuals scattered here and there. They are often more organized. Paul implies that the people following him were organized enough to have a "hidden agenda" illuminated by the questions posed in Galatians 3:1-4. The apostate Roman church picked up the torch and added more layers of complication which remained until the Protestant Reformation began the process of unwrapping the true gospel. But I think at least one perversion still remains--namely the one added by Paul's first century assailants. It has been with us for 2000 years and has come to feel very comfortable.

I suspect that God sent the 1888 messengers to help us unravel this final perversion. I know the key to the solution has something to do with verse three of Paul's scolding passage, "Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" Are we so foolish to think that what Jesus starts, we can finish? Are we crazy?

George.]]>
Of course the gospel has always had enemies, but these enemies are not only individuals scattered here and there. They are often more organized. Paul implies that the people following him were organized enough to have a "hidden agenda" illuminated by the questions posed in Galatians 3:1-4. The apostate Roman church picked up the torch and added more layers of complication which remained until the Protestant Reformation began the process of unwrapping the true gospel. But I think at least one perversion still remains--namely the one added by Paul's first century assailants. It has been with us for 2000 years and has come to feel very comfortable.

I suspect that God sent the 1888 messengers to help us unravel this final perversion. I know the key to the solution has something to do with verse three of Paul's scolding passage, "Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" Are we so foolish to think that what Jesus starts, we can finish? Are we crazy?

George.]]> <![CDATA[New Covenant Theology]]> http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=38 Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:32:58 -0500 hfsturges http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=38 New Covenant Theology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant_Theology
Quote: . . . "Since 1980 there has been a great resurgence of Reformed theology in Baptist circles. As a result, some have sought to develop a new, non-covenantal approach to theology distinct from the Second London Confession position. Leaders of this movement include such theologians as John Reisinger, Jon Zens, Fred Zaspel, Tom Wells, Gary Long, Geoff Volker, and Michael W. Adams.

. . . "Proponents maintain that the primary thrust of New Covenant Theology is the recognition of a promise-fulfillment understanding of Scripture. They suggest that whereas “Dispensationalism cannot get Israel and the church together in any sense whatsoever, and Covenant Theology cannot get them apart” (Reisinger, 19), New Covenant Theology finds the realization of all that the Old Covenant typified in the New Testament church (Covenant Theology, in contrast, merely levels the playing field and identifies them for all intents and purposes). The Mosaic economy is viewed as a temporal, conditional covenant that has been forever replaced by the glory of the New Covenant (2 Corinthians 3).
Comment:......................................

Why should they “develop a new, non-covenantal approach to theology?” There are several problems in this short phrase. One does not “develop” a theology. A Christian must study the Bible and find his theology in what it says! And we do not search for “new” approaches, a Christian must find what was revealed to the prophets and apostles as they wrote in the past.

New applications? Yes! We must make applications every day. And each person must make his own personal application.

“New Covenant Theology finds the realization of all that the Old Covenant typified in the New Testament church.” Keep this phrase in mind. We will shortly find what I believe is an amazing conclusion reached in New Covenant Theology! For now, the Old Covenant did not typify anything. The historical Old Covenant, based on the promises of the people; a people lacking faith (Deuteronomy 5:28,29), was soon broken.

"The Mosaic economy / a temporal, conditional covenant ?" Moses did not make any law, and did not make any covenant. He merely communicated what God gave to him -- including the ceremonial system (not a part of the covenant, but an illustration of the covenant). And the New Covenant? It was given to Adam and Eve in Eden, to Abraham, and at Sinai (Exodus 19:4-6). The New Covenant is simply the Everlasting Covenant of God, “My” Covenant, the Covenant of Redemption. Men throughout history have looked forward to the Messiah foretold in this covenant, Who would confirm the covenant on Calvary.]]> New Covenant Theology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant_Theology
Quote: . . . "Since 1980 there has been a great resurgence of Reformed theology in Baptist circles. As a result, some have sought to develop a new, non-covenantal approach to theology distinct from the Second London Confession position. Leaders of this movement include such theologians as John Reisinger, Jon Zens, Fred Zaspel, Tom Wells, Gary Long, Geoff Volker, and Michael W. Adams.

. . . "Proponents maintain that the primary thrust of New Covenant Theology is the recognition of a promise-fulfillment understanding of Scripture. They suggest that whereas “Dispensationalism cannot get Israel and the church together in any sense whatsoever, and Covenant Theology cannot get them apart” (Reisinger, 19), New Covenant Theology finds the realization of all that the Old Covenant typified in the New Testament church (Covenant Theology, in contrast, merely levels the playing field and identifies them for all intents and purposes). The Mosaic economy is viewed as a temporal, conditional covenant that has been forever replaced by the glory of the New Covenant (2 Corinthians 3).
Comment:......................................

Why should they “develop a new, non-covenantal approach to theology?” There are several problems in this short phrase. One does not “develop” a theology. A Christian must study the Bible and find his theology in what it says! And we do not search for “new” approaches, a Christian must find what was revealed to the prophets and apostles as they wrote in the past.

New applications? Yes! We must make applications every day. And each person must make his own personal application.

“New Covenant Theology finds the realization of all that the Old Covenant typified in the New Testament church.” Keep this phrase in mind. We will shortly find what I believe is an amazing conclusion reached in New Covenant Theology! For now, the Old Covenant did not typify anything. The historical Old Covenant, based on the promises of the people; a people lacking faith (Deuteronomy 5:28,29), was soon broken.

"The Mosaic economy / a temporal, conditional covenant ?" Moses did not make any law, and did not make any covenant. He merely communicated what God gave to him -- including the ceremonial system (not a part of the covenant, but an illustration of the covenant). And the New Covenant? It was given to Adam and Eve in Eden, to Abraham, and at Sinai (Exodus 19:4-6). The New Covenant is simply the Everlasting Covenant of God, “My” Covenant, the Covenant of Redemption. Men throughout history have looked forward to the Messiah foretold in this covenant, Who would confirm the covenant on Calvary.]]> <![CDATA[Covenant Theology]]> http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=37 Mon, 22 Feb 2010 13:28:16 -0500 hfsturges http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=37 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_theology

There are three main theologies of the Covenant -- Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, and New Covenant Theology. Covenant Theology is also known as “Covenantalism, Federal Theology or Federalism. This article just mentions a fourth, the Covenanters of Scotland.

In my opinion, Covenant Theology comes closest to the truth as I understand it. The article from Wikipedia is the best presentation I have read. It is a carefully reasoned presentation, and is free from personal bias. Even at that, there are problems from this view from the Seventh-day Adventist standpoint. I will discuss some of them and would appreciate responses from others.
Quote: . . . “These three covenants are called theological because they are not explicitly presented as such in the Bible but are thought to be theologically implicit, describing and summarizing the wealth of Scriptural data. Within historical Reformed Christian systems of thought, covenant theology is not merely treated as a point of doctrine, neither is it treated as a central dogma. Rather, Covenant is viewed as the structure by which the biblical text organizes itself.”[/font][/size]
The problem I see with all the “theologies” of the covenant is that they take a narrow view. Each one will describe the covenant from the theological standpoint, and often from the standpoint of the overall belief of its supporting body. In this case Calvinism. In this particular presentation of Covenant Theology, they do take a much broader view than most, for which I am grateful.

The three covenants described in this article are the Covenant of Redemption, the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace. The major issues I see now is the question if the Covenant of God can be reasonably divided into these three; and how these “covenants” are applied.]]> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_theology

There are three main theologies of the Covenant -- Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, and New Covenant Theology. Covenant Theology is also known as “Covenantalism, Federal Theology or Federalism. This article just mentions a fourth, the Covenanters of Scotland.

In my opinion, Covenant Theology comes closest to the truth as I understand it. The article from Wikipedia is the best presentation I have read. It is a carefully reasoned presentation, and is free from personal bias. Even at that, there are problems from this view from the Seventh-day Adventist standpoint. I will discuss some of them and would appreciate responses from others.
Quote: . . . “These three covenants are called theological because they are not explicitly presented as such in the Bible but are thought to be theologically implicit, describing and summarizing the wealth of Scriptural data. Within historical Reformed Christian systems of thought, covenant theology is not merely treated as a point of doctrine, neither is it treated as a central dogma. Rather, Covenant is viewed as the structure by which the biblical text organizes itself.”[/font][/size]
The problem I see with all the “theologies” of the covenant is that they take a narrow view. Each one will describe the covenant from the theological standpoint, and often from the standpoint of the overall belief of its supporting body. In this case Calvinism. In this particular presentation of Covenant Theology, they do take a much broader view than most, for which I am grateful.

The three covenants described in this article are the Covenant of Redemption, the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace. The major issues I see now is the question if the Covenant of God can be reasonably divided into these three; and how these “covenants” are applied.]]> <![CDATA[Righteousness by Faith: The End Time Message]]> http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=35 Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:34:00 -0500 hfsturges http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=35 What is the message for God for us at this time?

I would like to pose some questions as to the direction of the 1888 movement.

The end time message, the Loud Cry, will certainly focus on Righteousness by Faith. This was the message of Waggoner and Jones in 1888. Do we still need exactly the same message today? Waggoner and Jones had a precious message, a message from God. But was it the complete message? Was their message for that time the same that we need for this time?

Assuming that their message is the Loud Cry of Revelation 18, is it correct to say that it was not accepted at the time of 1888 to 1905? From what I read Waggoner and Jones were given free reign to speak in the churches, the camp meetings, and for ministerial institutes. It is true that Butler and Smith did not accept it for a long time, and they had a negative influence which no doubt slowed acceptance of the message.

But maybe, just maybe the end time message will be a little different. The term "1888 Message" has accumulated some baggage. Maybe we need to study Righteousness by Faith anew, and make it a new message for our day. Give it a new name. Inject some fire into it. Let's face it, most people will not take the time to read books written 120 years ago, unless it is written by Ellen White.

And another factor: The end time message will strongly advocate the place of the law and the Sabbath. I don't mean that this needs to be the focus, but that the place of Law in the message of Righteousness by Faith must be taught. We need to examine anew the place Christians take in overcoming sin, right use of the will, consent, making the decision. This must be fully integrated into the message of Righteousness by Faith.

What contribution does the 1888 Message Study Committee make in this? I believe a very important place. It is a group that promotes deep Bible study, and is available to laymen. If you excuse the analogy, it was this factor that led to the deep interest in Brinsmead's message in the 1960's. A message that attracted Bible students. The Ford message that came later attracted the liberal element, and I believe, made no contribution to preparing for the Loud Cry.

These are some thoughts and questions I have had. For any movement to succeed, it must constantly renew itself, or fade away.]]> What is the message for God for us at this time?

I would like to pose some questions as to the direction of the 1888 movement.

The end time message, the Loud Cry, will certainly focus on Righteousness by Faith. This was the message of Waggoner and Jones in 1888. Do we still need exactly the same message today? Waggoner and Jones had a precious message, a message from God. But was it the complete message? Was their message for that time the same that we need for this time?

Assuming that their message is the Loud Cry of Revelation 18, is it correct to say that it was not accepted at the time of 1888 to 1905? From what I read Waggoner and Jones were given free reign to speak in the churches, the camp meetings, and for ministerial institutes. It is true that Butler and Smith did not accept it for a long time, and they had a negative influence which no doubt slowed acceptance of the message.

But maybe, just maybe the end time message will be a little different. The term "1888 Message" has accumulated some baggage. Maybe we need to study Righteousness by Faith anew, and make it a new message for our day. Give it a new name. Inject some fire into it. Let's face it, most people will not take the time to read books written 120 years ago, unless it is written by Ellen White.

And another factor: The end time message will strongly advocate the place of the law and the Sabbath. I don't mean that this needs to be the focus, but that the place of Law in the message of Righteousness by Faith must be taught. We need to examine anew the place Christians take in overcoming sin, right use of the will, consent, making the decision. This must be fully integrated into the message of Righteousness by Faith.

What contribution does the 1888 Message Study Committee make in this? I believe a very important place. It is a group that promotes deep Bible study, and is available to laymen. If you excuse the analogy, it was this factor that led to the deep interest in Brinsmead's message in the 1960's. A message that attracted Bible students. The Ford message that came later attracted the liberal element, and I believe, made no contribution to preparing for the Loud Cry.

These are some thoughts and questions I have had. For any movement to succeed, it must constantly renew itself, or fade away.]]> <![CDATA[The Two Covenants at Sinai]]> http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=29 Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:48:07 -0400 hfsturges http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=29
Quote:One question. Did EGW herself ever say that the Covenant was broken when the tables of stone were thrown down, at the Golden Calf incident?

Quote:20 Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season;
21 Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers. Jeremiah 33:20-21 (KJV)

The covenant of God cannot be broken. See also: Numbers 23:19; Deuteronomy 7:9; Psalm 89:28; Malachi 3:6; Matthew 24:35; Romans 11:29; James 1:17.

The Everlasting Covenant of God, “My” Covenant, and the “New” Covenant (all one and the same) were made between the Father and the Son in the eternity before creation of this earth. Man had no part in making this covenant, and cannot alter or break this covenant. Man can only reject this covenant or accept it by faith.

However, there is another covenant (See PP 370-373) whereby man promises to obey the law of God. This is the “old covenant” but not a bad covenant. It is the covenant of “dedication.” Moses asked that this covenant be renewed in Deut 5:3,4. This covenant was renewed by six of the kings of Judah whenever there was a return to God from idolatry. I believe that God is pleased whenever we determine to obey Him.

This covenant points to the Everlasting Covenant of God which cannot be broken. The ceremonial law (which is NOT the covenant) also points to Jesus Christ, which is the focus of the Everlasting Covenant.

If a human covenant is done by faith, it is a good covenant. The fault in this covenant is when it is done without faith, or if it points to a distorted view of the Everlasting Covenant. These "human covenants" are local and temporary. They must be renewed with every generation, and as Christians we need to renew this covenant every day.

Did Ellen White ever say that the Covenant was broken? The following quotation refers to Israel after the heathen festival where they worshiped the golden calf:

Quote:“They could not hope for the favor of God through a covenant which they had broken; and now, seeing their sinfulness and their need of pardon, they were brought to feel their need of the Saviour revealed in the Abrahamic covenant, and shadowed forth in the sacrificial offerings. ...” Patriarchs and Prophets 372.

Patriarchs and Prophets, 370-373 speaks of two covenants. It requires some thought to be able to clearly define the two covenants; but it is very needful and worthwhile for us to do so.]]>
Quote:One question. Did EGW herself ever say that the Covenant was broken when the tables of stone were thrown down, at the Golden Calf incident?

Quote:20 Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season;
21 Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers. Jeremiah 33:20-21 (KJV)

The covenant of God cannot be broken. See also: Numbers 23:19; Deuteronomy 7:9; Psalm 89:28; Malachi 3:6; Matthew 24:35; Romans 11:29; James 1:17.

The Everlasting Covenant of God, “My” Covenant, and the “New” Covenant (all one and the same) were made between the Father and the Son in the eternity before creation of this earth. Man had no part in making this covenant, and cannot alter or break this covenant. Man can only reject this covenant or accept it by faith.

However, there is another covenant (See PP 370-373) whereby man promises to obey the law of God. This is the “old covenant” but not a bad covenant. It is the covenant of “dedication.” Moses asked that this covenant be renewed in Deut 5:3,4. This covenant was renewed by six of the kings of Judah whenever there was a return to God from idolatry. I believe that God is pleased whenever we determine to obey Him.

This covenant points to the Everlasting Covenant of God which cannot be broken. The ceremonial law (which is NOT the covenant) also points to Jesus Christ, which is the focus of the Everlasting Covenant.

If a human covenant is done by faith, it is a good covenant. The fault in this covenant is when it is done without faith, or if it points to a distorted view of the Everlasting Covenant. These "human covenants" are local and temporary. They must be renewed with every generation, and as Christians we need to renew this covenant every day.

Did Ellen White ever say that the Covenant was broken? The following quotation refers to Israel after the heathen festival where they worshiped the golden calf:

Quote:“They could not hope for the favor of God through a covenant which they had broken; and now, seeing their sinfulness and their need of pardon, they were brought to feel their need of the Saviour revealed in the Abrahamic covenant, and shadowed forth in the sacrificial offerings. ...” Patriarchs and Prophets 372.

Patriarchs and Prophets, 370-373 speaks of two covenants. It requires some thought to be able to clearly define the two covenants; but it is very needful and worthwhile for us to do so.]]> <![CDATA[The Divine and Human Nature of Christ]]> http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=28 Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:41:12 -0400 rosa http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=28 Is He a man forever without omnipresence?]]> Is He a man forever without omnipresence?]]> <![CDATA[children's meetings for the up coming conference at Berrien Springs]]> http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=26 Fri, 22 May 2009 22:32:19 -0400 Shirley Finneman http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=26
Most of all we will find out that God wants to deliver us from our Egypt and how He is getting us ready for the trip to the ultimate Promised land.]]>
Most of all we will find out that God wants to deliver us from our Egypt and how He is getting us ready for the trip to the ultimate Promised land.]]> <![CDATA[WHAT IS SIN?]]> http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=24 Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:47:53 -0400 dejan1888 http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=24
All agree that this question has a great importance in our salvation as one author stated:
"Our approach to the question of how to overcome sin will be determined by our understanding of what sin is".

So, what you think? What is sin?]]>
All agree that this question has a great importance in our salvation as one author stated:
"Our approach to the question of how to overcome sin will be determined by our understanding of what sin is".

So, what you think? What is sin?]]> <![CDATA[making obedience easier for children]]> http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=23 Mon, 27 Apr 2009 10:06:10 -0400 Shirley Finneman http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=23
1. How have the 1888 concepts helped YOU find joy in obedience?
2. Can we help our children without first experiencing it ourselves?
3. How does God's New Covenant Promises of writing the law in our hearts change your experience with obedience???
4. How does knowing Jesus took our same nature change your understanding of your own obedience?
5. Does it make a difference to combine this reality (#4) with the New Covenant???
6. Do you see Jesus as only an example-or the one who has the power to change us because he really KNOWS our frame?
7. How have grace, growing in Christ, being accepted in the beloved, forgiveness and Jesus being the Saviour of all men moulded your concept of obedience?

Please be specific.]]>
1. How have the 1888 concepts helped YOU find joy in obedience?
2. Can we help our children without first experiencing it ourselves?
3. How does God's New Covenant Promises of writing the law in our hearts change your experience with obedience???
4. How does knowing Jesus took our same nature change your understanding of your own obedience?
5. Does it make a difference to combine this reality (#4) with the New Covenant???
6. Do you see Jesus as only an example-or the one who has the power to change us because he really KNOWS our frame?
7. How have grace, growing in Christ, being accepted in the beloved, forgiveness and Jesus being the Saviour of all men moulded your concept of obedience?

Please be specific.]]> <![CDATA[Sanctuary Material Packets]]> http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=22 Sun, 26 Apr 2009 21:14:07 -0400 kirola http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=22 <![CDATA[Witnessing in the Workplace]]> http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=16 Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:45:05 -0400 kirola http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=16 <![CDATA[Question]]> http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=15 Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:47:05 -0400 dejan1888 http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=15 <![CDATA[Atonement at the Cross]]> http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=8 Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:11:04 -0500 hfsturges http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=8
Quote:The New Covenant is God's one-way promise to write His law in our hearts, and to give us everlasting salvation as a free gift "in Christ."

From Jesus' willing sacrifice on Calvary we can only have life-changing heart-felt gratitude. Ellen White writes that He made a "complete atonement" on the cross. From this sacrifice men are "bought back" and redeemed. They are atoned for and placed on vantage ground. God will draw them by His Holy Spirit.

Quote:"Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." Hebrews 4:16

In conferences of the 1888 MSC the term "legal justification" has been used. As I understand it, this is a release from condemnation. (can sins be forgiven unless they are confessed? 1 John 1:9) Then a person must take a step further. He must make a decision for Christ in order to experience that justification. He must take hold of grace by faith. He must crucify self and let Christ live in him.

The New Covenant to write the law on our hearts is a true statement. One must always carefully make a differentiation between the end result of our salvation, and the process we must make to get there.
----------------------
Hubert F. Sturges]]>
Quote:The New Covenant is God's one-way promise to write His law in our hearts, and to give us everlasting salvation as a free gift "in Christ."

From Jesus' willing sacrifice on Calvary we can only have life-changing heart-felt gratitude. Ellen White writes that He made a "complete atonement" on the cross. From this sacrifice men are "bought back" and redeemed. They are atoned for and placed on vantage ground. God will draw them by His Holy Spirit.

Quote:"Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." Hebrews 4:16

In conferences of the 1888 MSC the term "legal justification" has been used. As I understand it, this is a release from condemnation. (can sins be forgiven unless they are confessed? 1 John 1:9) Then a person must take a step further. He must make a decision for Christ in order to experience that justification. He must take hold of grace by faith. He must crucify self and let Christ live in him.

The New Covenant to write the law on our hearts is a true statement. One must always carefully make a differentiation between the end result of our salvation, and the process we must make to get there.
----------------------
Hubert F. Sturges]]> <![CDATA[Posting on the 1888 Forum]]> http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=3 Sun, 01 Mar 2009 01:51:10 -0500 Gail http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=3
We want to make this interesting to others, and to learn from each other as we go along. Also, make it gospel oriented as that is where the real significance of what we do lies.]]>
We want to make this interesting to others, and to learn from each other as we go along. Also, make it gospel oriented as that is where the real significance of what we do lies.]]> <![CDATA[Who are the 144,000]]> http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=2 Sun, 01 Mar 2009 01:48:09 -0500 Gail http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=2
Does one have to be perfect to be one of the 144,000?]]>
Does one have to be perfect to be one of the 144,000?]]> <![CDATA[Daniel, Revelation, the 1888 Message & non-SDA Bible Study Contacts]]> http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=1 Sat, 07 Feb 2009 19:26:49 -0500 H Thomas http://1888msc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=1
ht]]>
ht]]>