| Author | Message | ||
     Hubert F. Sturges (Hfsturges) Moderator Username: Hfsturges Post Number: 2189 Registered: 2-2002 Rating: N/A |
J.R., About Danny Shelton and Shelley Quinn: I heard Shelley Quinn speak on the covenants on 3ABN one time. I was a little taken aback. What she said sounded like dispensationalism. I have found several variant view points that I want to critique when I get my website finished. And you know about making a website -- you can mess up a weeks work in 5 minutes if you are not always real careful. I just decided to listen to all the advice I have gotten on that reading list. I will pare it down to just those sources that I recommend. Keep your eyes open. | ||
| Glenn Hansen (Hansen) member Username: Hansen Post Number: 198 Registered: 7-2006 Rating: N/A |
Hubb, I found this quote which may rightfully be understood to mean that I was calling you a "wacko". The use of the term "other" does suggest that you are among that tribe. "Is it really fair of you to take up our time when you have no intention of changing your position, but are only posturing, with an eye to enhancing your credibility among other Adventist wackos?" I don't understand the sensitivity to this term, but I do apologize for using it to describe you. If you can figure out a way for me to get into your website, I'll be happy to discuss the covenant with you, using the Bible only and avoiding pejoratives. | ||
| bill sorensen (Billsorensen) member Username: Billsorensen Post Number: 1710 Registered: 9-2004 Rating: N/A |
Elaine said..... "Cliff has yet to answer the questions asked here. He much prefers to pontificate through his bully pulpit where no questions are asked; it's much safer." Excuse me, Elaine. Cliff stated his willingness to dialogue with Tom on the 1844 issue of who and/or what fulfilled the time frame. Tom ran like a chicken to the henhouse. Since Cliff and the SDA church have shown why we believe in the yr/day principle in harmony with those who embraced this principle long before we came on the scene, any discussion apart from this accepted norm is futile. As usual, people skip the basic issue and fly to some conclusion apart from the basic disagreement. 1844 is the culminating date based on the yr/day principle. No discussion of other possibilities is meanful unless and until one side or the other changes their mind on the yr/day principle. How foolish to keep rattling on when the basic difference is not first resolved. But this is typical of most discussions on this forum. No one goes back to the basic difference and discuss this issue, even on the covenants, and both sides try to prove their point when there is no basis of agreement on where you start. So each side "proves" their point and any objective observers says, "So what?" Since the basic difference is not resolved, obviously, different conclusions are arrived at and each side claims to have "proven" their point. Now a comment on "Wackos". It is impossible to attack what a person believes without attacking the person. What we believe is who we are. Even modern SDA evangelism foolishly assumes they can attack Roman Catholic doctrine while claiming we are not attacking the people of that church. Does any one foolishly think a Communist can attack the American idealology of self government and not be attacking the people who embrace this idealology? How dumb can people be? Let's quit playing word games and "cut to the chase". To call a person a "wacko" for what they believe may not persuade them to change their mind. Few, if any of us are big enough to objectively consider if our position is "wacko" when we doubt the person making the statement has our best interest at heart. Ridicule and scorn seldom make a convert. Even if Jesus used it on His opposition at times. That is, "If I cast out demons in the name of demons, but what authority do you and your children cast the out?" We all have a terrible sense of insecurity and an identity crisis because of sin. Some deal with it in one way and some another, but it is there whether we like it or not. It creates frustration and insecurity. Tom rants like a maniac hopeing to convince himself as much as others of what he believes. Jesus had no identity crisis and always moved rationally and acted the same. But He knew we had one and hoped to help us find ours in Him and thus become rational and content. Until we do, we are all "wackos" and will no doubt act like one until we finally and fully discover who we are in Jesus. Jesus said, "Blind and knowest not....." And so it is. But we do need to quit acting like we can attack what a person believes and not be attacking the person. It is a rather foolish exercise in futility. Will someone tell SDA evangelists this obvious fact? Will they quit trying to tell people they are attacking the Catholic theology but not the people. How stupid do they think people are? Don't answer that question. We already know how stupid they think people are by the way they treat church members and suppose no one discerns their duplicity. Sorensen | ||
| Don Sands (Don) member Username: Don Post Number: 3386 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
I don't understand the sensitivity to this term I don't understand how you don't understand. Is the term wacko insulting, pejorative? Synonyms for wacko include: eccentric, irrational, mad, kook, crackpot, crank, crazy, cuckoo, ding-a-ling, dingbat, flake, fruitcake, harebrain, lamebrain, loony, lunatic, nut, screwball, weirdo. Maybe the Golden Rule will help here. Which of these would you want to be called at work? or at a family gathering? at www.atomorrow.com? The only synonym I like for myself is eccentric.  Imagine an Adventist surgeon, teacher, nurse, lawyer, government official, plumber, mechanic, etc. etc. etc. How could they do their job if they were truly wacko? If they are not truly wacko, then to call them such is to lie. (You are not a liar.) But to persist in calling people wacko who are simply different than you is lying. Maybe some would be inclined to think of the fringe of Adventism as wacko, but even there, there are some who are wonderfully practical, sensible, etc. Think of a few "mad" people that you know, if you can? I can think of one fellow, a good friend, but totally off the wall. Imaginary friends and enemies, etc. I don't understand how you cannot understand the sensitivity to this label? He, too, would feel insulted if I called him a wacko. If you are right, that a person is a wacko, that is all the more reason to be careful what you call him. So be easy on us wackos.  | ||
| bill sorensen (Billsorensen) member Username: Billsorensen Post Number: 1711 Registered: 9-2004 Rating: N/A |
Hubb said.... "About Danny Shelton and Shelley Quinn: I heard Shelley Quinn speak on the covenants on 3ABN one time. I was a little taken aback. What she said sounded like dispensationalism.' Hubb, that is because people assume the old covenant was somehow evil and a false system of worship. Paul said the fault was in the people who misunderstood the function and meaning of the covenant. There was no flaw in the old covenant if was understood as God intended it to be. Today, people attack the old covenant instead of the errors of preception by many who lived in that time. Millions understood the use and function of the old covenant and were saved by looking to Jesus as the promised redeemer to come. It had no other intended function as God gave it. But today, it is popular to take the false and warped view that many had during that period and assume their view was the true and proper view of the old covenant and its function. This is the view many Jews had at the coming of Jesus. From there, people today assume Jesus came and changed the covenant. He did not. He only showed what its original intent was and in this sense only is the covenant called a "new" covenant. New to the people who had a false view of it. From there, people today also think of a "new" law for the "new" covenant. NOT. No new law, no new covenant. Just one everlasting covenant based on love and obedience. The only covenant God has for all His universe in which Adam and Eve were created. The word "new" only means new to those who did not know what it meant from the beginning. We use the phrase today when we say, "John lives on Maple street, not Elm street." And a person may say, "That's new to me, I thought John lived on Elm street." There is nothing new about John living on Maple street. It is only "new" to the person who thought otherwise. Sorensen, the explainer | ||
| bill sorensen (Billsorensen) member Username: Billsorensen Post Number: 1712 Registered: 9-2004 Rating: N/A |
In this context, poor Tom and Dr. Ford thinks no one believed the gospel in the SDA church until they came along. Since it was "new" to them, they assume no one understood it because they didn't. So they impute their own ignorance to everyone else including all who came before them. How foolish. | ||
| Hubert F. Sturges (Hfsturges) Moderator Username: Hfsturges Post Number: 2190 Registered: 2-2002 Rating: N/A |
Glenn, Thanks for the apology. I had assumed from your usual posts that you were a reasonable person, and am glad to be reassured that you are. Do you have a PC with Windows? or a MAC? Is your resolution set at 1024x768? (It should work at other resolutions, though) Try: http://www.everlastingcovenant.com If this does not work, go to www.covenantforum.com and come back to the "website" through the back door. (or: http://www.covenantforum.com/cgi-bin/discus/discus.cgi Actually, you don't have to read the website, I am glad to just discuss the covenant here. My last post to you, I believe, I posted my underlying belief: that the covenant was made before Creation, and that it centered on Jesus Christ offering to pay the penalty for sin. Thus, any discussion of more than one covenant is beside the point. But let's hear what you thik. Hubb | ||
| Hubert F. Sturges (Hfsturges) Moderator Username: Hfsturges Post Number: 2191 Registered: 2-2002 Rating: N/A |
Bill, Your statement: . . . "There was no flaw in the old covenant if was understood as God intended it to be. Today, people attack the old covenant instead of the errors of preception by many who lived in that time. . . . "Millions understood the use and function of the old covenant and were saved by looking to Jesus as the promised redeemer to come. It had no other intended function as God gave it." Bill, these statements sound like you are on the slippery slope toward dispensationalism. Please pardon the term. "Old Covenant". Look in your concordance -- this is not in the Bible even once. "Old Testament" is present just once in 2 Corinthians 3:14. (I need to study this chapter some more) The historical, classic "old covenant" consisted only of the presumptuous promise of the people "all that the Lord hath said, we will do." This covenant lasted just about six weeks. The covenant offered to Israel in Exodus 19:4-6 was the everlasting (Abrahamic) covenant of grace. Both covenants focused on the law -- in one the people would KEEP the law. In the other, God would use the law as a promise of how He would make of Israel "an holy nation." See Exodus 19:4 and Exodus 20:2 for the grace driven direction for both the covenant and the law. After a series of four intense interceptions by Moses, God again brought Israel under the everlasting covenant of grace. See Exodus 34:10. The sacrifices and ceremonies were to point to Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God. Unfortunately, the people began to focus on the ceremonies as the substance of their religion (consider Solomon offering 6000 lambs at the dedication of the temple). In doing so, they lost sight of the Sin Bearer to which the ceremonies pointed. Thus they fell back into the "old covenant" mindset. It was this mindset, law keeping as the method of salvation, sacrifices and ceremonies as having merit in themselves that Paul had to deal with in his dealing with the Judaizer. In Hebrews, this is referred to as "first, old, temporary". Paul was showing that these things never had efficacy in themselves. Only through Jesus Christ could man be justified. I cringe a little when people talk so carelessly about "old" and "new" covenant. I think it plays into the hands of the dispensationalists. God had just ONE covenant, the everlasting covenant. Anyway, that is the way I see it. Hubb | ||
| bill sorensen (Billsorensen) member Username: Billsorensen Post Number: 1713 Registered: 9-2004 Rating: N/A |
. "Millions understood the use and function of the old covenant and were saved by looking to Jesus as the promised redeemer to come. It had no other intended function as God gave it." Hubb, how would this statement lend itself to advocating dispensationalism? I guess I don't see your point. Bill | ||
| Ron Corson (Ron) member Username: Ron Post Number: 1861 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
Bill wrote: "Millions understood the use and function of the old covenant and were saved by looking to Jesus as the promised redeemer to come. It had no other intended function as God gave it." Hubb, how would this statement lend itself to advocating dispensationalism? I guess I don't see your point. Other then the fact that it is a total fiction I am not sure how it relates to dispensationalism. Why people keep thinking that Old Testament people saw Christ in the ceremonies I don't understand. Certainly you don't see it from either the Old Testament writers and you don't find it in the New Testament writers either. It seems to just be some sort of Christian tradition that says that these people could look into the future and what they supposedly saw they had faith in. It would make far more sense and be within the expression of the Old Testament to simply acknowledge that their faith was in God rather then a manifestation of God in the incarnate form of Christ that they somehow discerned yet were entirely silent about. New Protestants.com | ||
| Elaine Nelson (Elaine) member Username: Elaine Post Number: 4730 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
I posted my underlying belief: that the covenant was made before Creation Please furnish and xplain your biblical support of this belief. | ||
| Hubert F. Sturges (Hfsturges) Moderator Username: Hfsturges Post Number: 2192 Registered: 2-2002 Rating: N/A |
Before the Foundation of the World: Elaine, You asked for the references that indicate that the covenant was determined before Creation. First we need to show that Jesus Christ and His offering to die for the sins of man is the focus of the Covenant. This is first shown in Genesis 3:15, “It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” In Daniel 9:27, Jesus is prophesied to come to “confirm the covenant with many.” Jesus is shown to be the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. See also: 2 Timothy 1:9; 1 Peter 1:20: . . . “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Revelation 13:8 The covenant / plan of salvation was determined within a council of the Godhead. . . . “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Acts 2:23 . . . “And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!” Luke 22:22. Jesus, who is Jehovah and Creator in the Old Testament, volunteered, offered Himself to meet the demands of the law of God for us. . . . 17 “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. . . . 18 “No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.” John 10:17-18 Jesus incarnation was planned in the very Creation itself. In creating Adam, man was given the capacity to understand and the power to resist sin if he so chose. Those capacities were used to the full only by Jesus Christ. However, those capacities are still within mankind subject to the power of grace. . . . “Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: . . . “Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. . . . “Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.” Hebrews 10:5,7,9 There may be other verses, but I think these offer a good explanation. | ||
| Hubert F. Sturges (Hfsturges) Moderator Username: Hfsturges Post Number: 2193 Registered: 2-2002 Rating: N/A |
Bill, Your statement: . . . ". "Millions understood the use and function of the old covenant and were saved by looking to Jesus as the promised redeemer to come. It had no other intended function as God gave it." I know that you do not believe in dispensationalism. I only said that careless use of the term "old covenant" tends to support dispensationalism. To use the terms "old covenant" and "new covenant" promotes the idea that there is more than one covenant. Actually, most Adventist speakers and writers who use these terms would deny that there is more than one covenant, yet their speech betrays them. The classic old covenant is based on Exodus 19:8, "All that the Lord has said, we will do." This is the presumptuous promise of works. How we know is a longer discussion. God works with man where he is, and He graciously accepted "man's covenant" and instituted a ratification ceremony (Exodus 24). Within about six weeks, this covenant was broken by a wild, heathen, rebellious party at the base of Mt. Sinai. This covenant was NOT renewed. After four intense intercessions by Moses, God brought them back into the covenant -- but not "man's covenant" of works. See Exodus 34:10. This is the Everlasting Covenant of grace. It is true that the "covenant of works" mindset was resurrected by the people. They focused on the sacrifices and ceremonies as the substance of their religion, and forgot the Sin Bearer to come. The term "old covenant" as used by a number of SDA speakers and writers refers to this mindset. The term "new covenant" is convenient to refer to a covenant of grace. The problem is that in many people's minds it also means that the law is done away. This is how I see it. I could say more, but this is enough for now. | ||
| bill sorensen (Billsorensen) member Username: Billsorensen Post Number: 1714 Registered: 9-2004 Rating: N/A |
Hubb, I think you have some confusion between the covenant of redemption between the Father and the Son, and the covenant Jesus makes with His people. This is not old and new covenant. It is two seperate covenants with different functions. Thus, you stated.... "The classic old covenant is based on Exodus 19:8, "All that the Lord has said, we will do." This is the presumptuous promise of works." There was nothing presumptuous about their commitment to obey God. And it is not the "covenant of works". The covenant of "works" is the ceremonial law. "Obey and live" is not a covenant of works. "Obey and live" is God's exhortation to His people who have been redeemed. If an unbeliever thinks he can merit heaven by keeping the ten commandments, then, and only then can we describe it as a "covenant of works". For a believer, the ten commandment law is a "covenant of grace". As a child of God, he enters into a covenant with God to obey His law. People today have such a warped view of the law, they think any covenant based on the ten commandments is a "covenant of works". This is not true. But because of a false and convoluted view of old and new covenant, many today assume that anyone, believer or not, who covenants with God to obey His law has placed themselves under a "covenant of works to merit heaven". A failure to discern a difference between "obey and live" as applied to a believer vs. an unbeliever is a sad commentary on modern Christian theology, even in the SDA church. Morris Venden was one who advocated and started this confusion over 25 years ago. He claimed anyone striving to obey the law was ipso facto an unbeliever. And so he took up the apostate Protestant theology formulated against historical Adventism that stated obedience to the law is a moral imperative and we are judged by our works and such a judgment is salvational. Today, most SDA teachers, pastors and theologians are afraid to say that obedience is salvational. We have kissed the feet of apostate Protestantism for fear of being called "legalists" So what? From one perspective, who cares? The bible has been abandon with some fancy foot work and word games and today most "worship, they know not what." Making no distinction between the covenant between the Father and the Son, vs. Jesus and His people (actually ignoring this covenant calling it legalism) has warped, convoluted and is destroying the spirituality of the church. Hubb, I don't see you explaining the covenants in a biblical context. I think you are confused like many others. My observation of course. Sorensen | ||
| Elaine Nelson (Elaine) member Username: Elaine Post Number: 4731 Registered: 8-2004 Rating: N/A |
There is no statement in the Bible saing that Christ was also Jehovah. Ron says it best and I agree: Other then the fact that it is a total fiction I am not sure how it relates to dispensationalism. Why people keep thinking that Old Testament people saw Christ in the ceremonies I don't understand. Certainly you don't see it from either the Old Testament writers and you don't find it in the New Testament writers either. It seems to just be some sort of Christian tradition that says that these people could look into the future and what they supposedly saw they had faith in. It would make far more sense and be within the expression of the Old Testament to simply acknowledge that their faith was in God rather then a manifestation of God in the incarnate form of Christ that they somehow discerned yet were entirely silent about. | ||
| Hubert F. Sturges (Hfsturges) Moderator Username: Hfsturges Post Number: 2194 Registered: 2-2002 Rating: N/A |
Elaine, I think we recognize that the God of the Old Testament was Jehovah. Here is a statement that Jesus Christ was the "Rock" that followed them in the desert to provide them with water: . . . "4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." 1 Corinthians 10:4 If you study further, you will find that Jesus, second Person of the Godhead is the One who has always interacted with men. These verses indicate to me that Jesus Christ is the Jehovah of the Old Testament. . . . 1 "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, . . . 2 "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; . . . 10 "And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:" Hebrews 1:1-2,10 How could people see Christ in the ceremonies? It may have been dimly at first. However, there was a rich oral tradition. Ron denies this. He thinks that Adam and Eve lived in a cave. Even today, traditional schools in the east rely largely on memorizing. With a lack of electronic entertainment, there was much more interaction among people than we see today. I saw both these things during my term in Ethiopia. In the Jewish culture, people memorized chapters, even books of the Bible. It is said that Cyrus knew the name of each soldier in his army. There is more, but you could look up about the oral tradition on the internet. The oral tradition is important as it helps us see that the patriarchs had much more instruction than what we find in Genesis. What we can presume about what they knew of the sacrifices is beside the point today. Looking back through New Testament eyes, we can see clearly the meaning of the sacrifices and the ceremonies. See 2 Corinthians 3:13-16. ---------------------- Elaine, you did not respond to my post about the everlasting covenant being made before Creation. What are your thoughts about that? | ||
| Hubert F. Sturges (Hfsturges) Moderator Username: Hfsturges Post Number: 2195 Registered: 2-2002 Rating: N/A |
Bill, Your statement: . . . "Hubb, I think you have some confusion between the covenant of redemption between the Father and the Son, and the covenant Jesus makes with His people." This "covenant of redemption" between Jesus and His people -- When was it made? When was it ratified? Is it still in force today? I assume you mean for the "covenant of redemption" to be the same as the everlasting covenant, which was made in heaven before Creation, and which was ratified (confirmed) by the sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary. I think you quickly see that no other covenant has these features. Of course there are promises, laws, mandates, expectations, etc given from time to time. But were these "covenants"? I don't think so -- at least not in the sense of the everlasting covenant. See Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 370-373. How do we know that the human promise to obey God was presumptuous? Here are some indications: 1. The people did not have faith. They were terrified with God came near and spoke to them. If they had "sanctified" themselves as instructed, the story would have been different. 2. When the covenant of human promises was ratified, God warned them that he would send His angel with them. They were warned to "provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions:" Exodus 23:21. There was no provision for forgiveness in this covenant. 3. When Moses succeeded in interceding with God, it was a very different covenant than what the people had made. There were no human promises. See Exodus 34:10. God would do wonderful things through His people. I pretty much agree with the second half of your post, except for this statement: . . . "Making no distinction between the covenant between the Father and the Son, vs. Jesus and His people (actually ignoring this covenant calling it legalism) has warped, convoluted and is destroying the spirituality of the church." You need to show me that Jesus made a separate covenant from the covenant made in heaven in the council of the Godhead. | ||
| Dan Brooks (Dan) member Username: Dan Post Number: 211 Registered: 1-2006 Rating: N/A |
Bill S. - Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 5:05 pm: That post was like a breath of fresh air. Especially since just 2 minutes before, I had just turned off LLBN ten minutes into one of Moron Venden's 30 minute diatribes on the subject. Ten minutes was all I could stand. I don't know what Jesus he seeks a relationship with. The Jesus I know said to keep the commandments. Where is the alternative voice to all this confusion? If it can't be stated simply, it's not understood. |
