| Author | Message | ||
| Nowhitehats Registered user Username: Nowhitehats Post Number: 74 Registered: 4-2010 |
Under the Mosaic Covenant, in order to gain the blessings of God, the people rested from physical work on the Sabbath. So it was a weekly rest (in addition to other feast days/new moon celebrations. Adventism claims that the laws mentioned in the prophecy of Jeremiah 31 refer to the 10 commandments. I've been imagining what it might mean to have the Sabbath command written on my heart. I seems as though it would have to mean that a Christian would be motivated from the heart to rest over a specific 24 hr. period of time. This notion becomes very confusing on two counts: 1) The motivation to keep the 4th commandment simply does not exist in my life, 2) if the motivation did exist, it seems as though it would only be addressing the issue of physical rest only, not spiritual rest. To compound the confusion, some Adventists, in order to bring the old and new covenants into more alignment, are claiming that those under the old covenant had the same new covenant benefits. I was recently given a copy of Skip MacCarty's book, In Granite or Ingrained (Adventist publication) that contends that those under the OC also had a spiritual rest they could enter. MacCarty says:
also
I see MacCarty as saying that, under the OC, the people had the mandate to keep the legal requirements and take part in the spiritual benefits of the new covenant as well. He also seems to suggest that, under the NC, believers experience rest in the same way those under the old covenant did. This line of thinking removes any real differences between the OC and NC expect perhaps, as MacCarty puts it, "The rest...may be deeper..." My question then is, "What then is the significance of the Jeremiah's prophecy that pointed to a time when God would put His laws within us, written on our hearts." If those under the old covenant had everything those under the new are give why have a new at all? It seems to me that this prophecy is not needed and a savior becomes superfluous. I also keep coming back to the fact that a shadow is not the reality - there is a difference. Thoughts? | ||
| Paulcross Registered user Username: Paulcross Post Number: 235 Registered: 4-2005 |
A thought... Adventist go to great lengths to blur the distinctions between the Old and New covenants. There were blessings associated with the old covenant but the blessings under the new covenant are associated with the new covenant and not an "upgrade" or addendum to the old covenant. After reading the quotes from S. MacCarty I was reminded of three texts in Hebrews. Hebrews 8:7-9 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. 8 For he finds fault with them when he says: “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. Hebrews 8:13 13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. The New Testament talks about the old covenant being flawed and inferior to the new covenant, in other words there were things that the old covenant could not do or provide that the new covenant effectively addresses. The old covenant is obsolete is demolished by the arrival and implementation of the new covenant. Adventism wants the new covenant to function as a lean-to or retrofit for the old covenant so they can keep the provisions, signs and blessings of the old covenant intact. The authors of Hebrews, Galations, Romans and Corinthians add their voice to Jesus' earthly teaching that the old covenant is obsolete (no longer in use. I see this as an either - or situation. Galations addresses the error of trying to marry the two covenants. Galatians 5:2-3 2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. Thoughts? Paul Cross | ||
| Freeatlast Registered user Username: Freeatlast Post Number: 851 Registered: 5-2002  |
Who is he kidding? Nobody under the Old Covenant ever entered God's rest! "AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH, 'THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST.'" Hebrews 3:11 | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 14188 Registered: 12-2003  |
If pushed to explain themselves, Adventists will say that the new covenant does not really start until the second coming. They refuse to see that Jesus is the fulfillment of the law, that all of the shadows of the law pointed to Him. McCarty's book is pure confusion and sleight-of-hand. He says pious-sounding stuff, but it doesn't square with Scripture. Colleen | ||
| Bobalou Registered user Username: Bobalou Post Number: 94 Registered: 2-2005 |
Why do SDAs always invite the Holy Spirit to come? Is it because they have not accepted Him as a free gift? Is it because they have not accepted Grace and the promise? | ||
| Philharris Registered user Username: Philharris Post Number: 2815 Registered: 5-2007  |
Yes! They don't understand what happened at Pentacost. They don't understand why we have a human spirit that is far more and not of the air we breath. Phil | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 9891 Registered: 3-2004  |
I have found 3ABN on my tv. Every so often I go there to see what they are preaching. Guess what? They mention Jesus occasionally but talk about other things more, like that above. I pray for them. Diana |
