You are not logged in.
Anti-semitic if you say only a remnant of Jews will accept the Messiah that saves? I guess I am an antisemite. Now I just have to find a handle for me, a Canadian living in the US, when you disagree or say something against Canadians. Any help from the Anti Defamation League????
Offline
Hubb said:
It is of interest to me to get your opinion on what I find about the covenant. Even it is a criticism -- so long as it is a direct response to what I post. But that may be impossible.
When I respond to you, Hubb, I believe I am responding to your core question. To find out that your issue was a covenant between God and His Son, floored me, and made me consider familial relations. Do you really think Jesus had a hard time agreeing to be our Savior to the extent of needing a covenant to hold over Christ's head in the Garden of Gethsemane? If so I really need to adjust my view of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. WOW!!!
Last edited by bob_2 (02-09-11 12:46 am)
Offline
I am curious when and where Jesus and the Father consulted. As a matter of biblical information, there is nothing that I am aware of in the OT where Jesus or the Father's Son is ever mentioned. The first is in the NT, where Jesus refers to God as His Father, but never calls himself God, nor do any of the NT writers refer to Jesus as God. Wasn't that a doctrine that originated long afterward and finalized at Nicea in 325?
Offline
Elaine what about this passage:
John 1: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.
9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”) 16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
Offline
Elaine didn't John say it in the last verse of that passage:
John 1: 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
Last edited by bob_2 (02-09-11 8:03 pm)
Offline
These texts say that Jesus is God's son.
17-18: "grace and truth have come through Jesus CHrist. No one has ever seen God; it is the only Son, who is nearest to the Father's heart, who has made him known" (Jerusalem).
17-18: "grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. No man has seen God at any time, the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him" (NASB).
Neither of those translations say that the Son is himself God. These are considered to be some of the most accurate translations.
Which translation are you using? The Interpreter's Bible Commentary says:
"In the beginning was the WORD, who is his mind and purpose and the agent of his self-disclosure. By his word he created the world. The Word is also the wisdom of God (see Prov.8). In Greek, the word Logos
is ever true. Philo, a Jewish writer and contemporary of Jesus accepted that the Logos was the image of God's mind in creation, and in man's reason."
John is the last writer of the NT, and his Gospel is a theological treatise, not a biographical narrative as the other three appear to be. He was intent on proving that Jesus was also God, something neither Paul nor the other writers proclaimed. Had they all done so, the Trinitarian concept would not have taken hundreds of years to affirm. Jesus never claimed to be God, but God's Son.
Offline
Bob,
In your post yesterday you seemed surprised at the concept of an everlasting covenant between Father and Son before the foundation of the world. In your response you used human reasoning and logic, which at best is faulty. In discussing the covenant, we are safe only in finding what the Bible says. I have presented before to you three rather long lists of verses showing that Jesus came to this earth to do the (pre-arranged) will of the Father, that this was a mystery held in reserve, and not fully known until Calvary, and that Jesus was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
This rather long article is what I have found in internet articles and in commentaries that show that other people hold this same belief (of a pre-creation council between Father and Son to form the everlasting covenant). If calling this a covenant bothers you, I will accept the terms Everlasting Gospel or Plan of Salvation as being just as good.
I have not used Adventist authors or Ellen White.
Covenant Formed before the Foundation of this World
by Hubert F. Sturges, M.D.
Topics:
Introduction
God in the Covenant - Spurgeon
The Covenant of God - Baynard
God’s Covenant with Abraham - John Piper
God’s Covenant with Creation - Ronald Hanko
The Divine Covenants - Reverend Pink
Notes from Commentaries:
When the Contractual Model Is Not Appropriate
The Covenant of Salt
Barne’s Notes on the New Testament
Adam Clarke’s Commentary
Jamiesson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
The Easy-to-Read Commentary Series
Introduction:
A brief review of internet articles shows that most writers place the origin of the Covenant of God when it was given to Abraham. This does not take into consideration the features of the Everlasting Covenant – the cooperation between Father and Son (John 3:16), the plan for Jesus to come to earth to live a sinless life and then to die on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins, and the plan to bring the reign of sin to a close and to restore all that was lost in Eden.
Nor does it consider that all covenants made with men are temporary by nature due to men’s mortality.
There are some articles that recognize that the everlasting covenant had its origin in a council between the Father and the Son before the foundation of this world. It was kept in reserve as a mystery to be unfolded if sin should occur. This was a covenant made entirely by God as to what God would do to redeem men. It was the Plan of Salvation, first announced to Adam and Eve after they sinned in Eden.
There are many verses in the Bible that show that Jesus came to this earth to do the will of the Father – a will that was pre-arranged. It was a plan made before the foundation of the world, and a mystery not fully revealed until Jesus died on the cross.
The purpose of this article is to explore the literature to find other (not all) writers who taught this truth. Each writer is unique in his presentation, and some will express concepts which not all will agree with. So read with care.
..........................................................
God in the Covenant
Sermon (No. 93)
Delivered on Sabbath Morning, August 3rd, 1856, by the
REV. C. H. Spurgeon
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0093.htm
The whole covenant is a covenant, not so much between man and his Maker as between Jehovah and man's representative, the Lord Jesus Christ. The human side of the covenant has been already fulfilled by Jesus, and there remains nothing now but the covenant of giving, not the covenant of requirements. The whole covenant with regard to us, the people of God, now stands thus: "I will give this, I will bestow that; I will fulfill this promise; I will grant that favour." But there is nothing for us to do; he will work all our works in us; and the very graces that are sometimes represented as being stipulations of the covenant, are promised to us. He gives us faith; he promises to give us the law in our inward parts, and to write it on our hearts.
Comment: C.H. Spurgeon is a well known pastor and evangelist from 150 years ago. He is clear in his belief in an original covenant between Father and Son. He expresses this truth well, though we must forgive his Calvinist leaning!
....................................................
The Covenant of God
Dr. Chuck Baynard July 2003
http://www.cloverepc.org/Articles-paper … of_God.PDF
Covenant Part One
CONVENANT OF GRACE, the eternal plan of redemption entered into by the three persons of the Godhead, and carried out by them in its several parts. In it the Father represented the Godhead in its indivisible sovereignty, and the Son his people as their surety (John 17:4,6,9; Isaiah 42:6; Psalm 89:3). The conditions of this covenant were,
1. On the part of the Father:
a. all needful preparation to the Son for the accomplishment of his work;13
b. support in the work;14
c. a glorious reward in the exaltation of Christ when his work was done;15
d. his investiture with universal dominion;16
e. his having the administration of the covenant committed into his hands;17
f. in the final salvation of all his people.18
2. On the part of the Son the conditions were:
a. his becoming incarnate;19
b. as the second Adam his representing all his people, assuming their place and undertaking all
their obligations under the violated covenant of works (The original covenant with Adam as the
representative of all his posterity.) ;
c. obeying the law;20
d. suffering its penalty in their stead;21
e. the mediator of and to fulfill all its conditions in behalf of his people, and dispense to them all its
blessings.22
COVENANT Part Two
1. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2. “He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him
nothing was made that was made” (John 1:1,2).
Before the creation of anything Christ existed in all of His glory and divinity. God’s plan of redemption precedes creation of man and the fall. The revelation of God’s will in saving some rests on the sovereignty of God and the election to salvation of those God elected to salvation in Christ from eternity. The election itself remains within the mystery of God where we cannot enter. The fact of the election is well established in scripture and is accepted by the word of God in faith. Man’s understanding of the election nor man’s inability to explain to the satisfaction to some or all of the election have no effect whatsoever on the veracity of the election.23
A debate that is as old as man centers on the result of this eternal election whereby in Christ God chose some to salvation in Christ. Why does this ancient debate still rage? The whole of the debate concerning the election is grounded in sin and the will of the created to rule himself. Sin first appears in the fall of man . . . . .
10 Ge 17:9,10
11 Jer 34:13,14
12 Nu 18:19 Le 2:13 2Ch 13:5
13 Heb 10:5 Isa 42:1-7
14 Lu 22:43
15 Php 2:6-11
16 Joh 5:22 Ps 110:1
17 Mt 28:18 Joh 1:12 17:2 Ac 2:33
18 Isa 35:10 53:10,11 Jer 31:33 Ti 1:2
19 Ga 4:4,5
20 Ps 40:8 Isa 42:21 Joh 9:4,5
21 Isa 53:1ff. 2Co 5:21 Ga 3:13
22 Heb 8:6 9:15 12:24
23 Eph 1:1-12
.......................................................
God’s Covenant with Abraham
Genesis 17:1-8
December 4, 1983 (Morning)
Bethlehem Baptist Church
John Piper, Pastor
http://www.soundofgrace.com/piper83/120483m.htm
Don't throw up your sinful hands here in despair. The only candidates for the blessing of Abraham are sinners. That's why Jesus had to come to confirm the covenant. Not even Abraham could have enjoyed the blessing of Abraham if Jesus hadn't come. Abraham, too, was a sinner. While Mary carried the Lord Jesus in her womb she sang a song and said, "The Lord has shown strength with his arm … He has helped his servant Israel in remembrance of his mercy, as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his posterity for ever" (Lk. 1:51,54-55). The child in her womb was the remembrance of God's mercy as he had promised it to Abraham. Mercy, mind you! Christ confirms the covenant because in his life of obedience and innocent suffering he settles the accounts of the children of Abraham, so that God can be just and yet say to me a sinner: "I am your God." "If he did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not with him freely give us all things?" (Rom. 8:32). That spectacular promise cannot be bought or earned. But it can be believed. And if you believe it everything changes.
..............................................................
GOD'S COVENANT WITH CREATION
by Rev. Ronald Hanko
Covenant Reformed Fellowship, Ballymena, Northern Ireland
Sabbath morning March 17th 1996
http://www.prca.org/sermons/genesis8.15-9.17.html
His "Covenant With Creation". In speaking of that covenant, I wish to show you three things. First, I want to show that there is such a covenant of God with the creation and that it is part of God's one everlasting covenant of grace.
If this covenant is simply another facet of the one everlasting covenant of God, it must be in Christ.
............................................................
THE DIVINE COVENANTS: PART ONE—THE EVERLASTING COVENANT
Rev. Pink
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/ … nts_01.htm
The Word of God opens with a brief account of creation, the making of man, and his fall. From later Scripture we have no difficulty in ascertaining that the issue of the trial to which man was subjected in Eden had been divinely foreseen. “The Lamb slain (in the purpose of God) from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8) makes it clear that, in view of the Fall, provision had been made by God for the recovery of His people who had apostatized in Adam, and that the means whereby their recovery would be effected were consistent with the claims of the divine holiness and justice. All the details and results of the plan of mercy had been arranged and settled from the beginning by divine wisdom.
That provision of grace which God made for His people before the foundation of the world embraced the appointment of His own Son to become the mediator, and of the work which, in that capacity, He should perform. This involved His assumption of human nature, the offering of Himself as a sacrifice for sin, His exaltation in the nature He had assumed to the right hand of God in the heavenlies, His supremacy over His church and over all things for His church, the blessings which He should be empowered to dispense, and the extent to which His work should be made effectual unto the salvation of souls. These were all matters of definite and certain arrangement, agreed upon between God and His Son in the terms of the everlasting covenant.
The first germinal publication of the everlasting covenant is found in Genesis 3:15 “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” Thus, immediately after the Fall, God announced to the serpent his ultimate doom through the work of the Mediator, and revealed unto sinners the channel through whom alone salvation could flow to them. The continual additions which God subsequently made to the revelation He gave in Genesis 3:15 were, for a considerable time, largely through covenants He made with the fathers, covenants which were both the fruit of His eternal plan of mercy and the gradual revealing of the same unto the faithful. Only as those two facts are and held fast by us are we in any position to appreciate and perceive the force of those subordinate covenants.
God made covenants with Noah, Abraham, David; but were they, as fallen creatures, able to enter into covenant with their august and holy Maker? Were they able to stand for themselves, or be sureties for others? The very question answers itself. What, for instance, could Noah possibly do which would insure that the earth should never again be destroyed by a flood? Those subordinate covenants were less than the Lord’s making manifest, in an especial and public manner, the grand covenant: making known something of its glorious contents, confirming their own personal interest in it, and assuring them that Christ, the great covenant head, should be of themselves and spring from their seed.
This is what accounts for that singular expression which occurs so frequently in Scripture: “Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your seed after you” (Gen. 9:9). Yet there follows no mention of any conditions, or work to be done by them: only a promise of unconditional blessings. And why? because the “conditions” were to be fulfilled and the “work” was to be done by Christ, and nothing remained but to bestow the blessings on His people. So when David says, “He hath made with me an everlasting covenant” (2 Sam. 23:5) he simply means, God had admitted him into an interest in the everlasting covenant and made him partaker of its privileges. Hence it is that when the apostle Paul refers to the various covenants which God had made with men in Old Testament times, he styles them not “covenants of stipulations” but covenants of promise” (Eph 2:12).
...................................................................
When the Contractual Model Is Not Appropriate
The Complete Book of Everyday Christianity
God has chosen not to contract but rather to covenant with his people. Whereas a contract involves an exchange of rights and duties, the biblical notion of covenant involves a unilateral act of love and promise on the part of God and a promise that all can appropriate. This results in a loving and grateful desire on our part to live according to God’s purposes, priorities and values.
.....................................................................
Covenant of Salt
Easton’s Illustrated Dictionary
A "covenant of salt" signifies an everlasting covenant, in the sealing or ratifying of which salt, as an emblem of perpetuity, is used (Num 18:19; Lev 2:13; 2Ch 13:5). — Topic Explorer - covenant
....................................................................
COVENANT OF WORKS,
Easton’s Illustrated Dictionary
In the constitution under which Adam was placed at his creation. In this covenant,
(1.) The contracting parties were (a) God the moral Governor, and (b) Adam, a free moral agent, and representative of all his natural posterity (Rom 5:12-19).
(2.) The promise was "life" (Mat 19:16, 17; Gal 3:12).
(3.) The condition was perfect obedience to the law, the test in this case being abstaining from eating the fruit of the "tree of knowledge," etc.
(4.) The penalty was death (Gen 2:16, 17).
This covenant is also called a covenant of nature, as made with man in his natural or unfallen state; a covenant of life, because "life" was the promise attached to obedience; and a legal covenant, because it demanded perfect obedience to the law.
The "tree of life" was the outward sign and seal of that life which was promised in the covenant, and hence it is usually called the seal of that covenant.
This covenant is abrogated under the gospel, inasmuch as Christ has fulfilled all its conditions in behalf of his people, and now offers salvation on the condition of faith. It is still in force, however, as it rests on the immutable justice of God, and is binding on all who have not fled to Christ and accepted his righteousness.
— Topic Explorer - covenant
............................................................
Barne’s Notes on the New Testament
Revelation 13:8
Slain from the foundation of the world. Revelation 5:6. Compare Revelation 3:5. The meaning here is, not that he was actually put to death "from the foundation of the world," but that the intention to give him for a sacrifice was formed then, and that it was so certain that it might be spoken of as actually then occurring. See Romans 4:17. The purpose was so certain; it was so constantly represented by bloody sacrifices from the earliest ages, all typifying the future Saviour, that it might be said that he was "slain from the foundation of the world." Prof. Stuart, however, (Com. in loc.,) supposes that this phrase should be connected with the former member of the sentence-" whose names are not written, from the foundation of the world, in the life-book of the Lamb which was slain." Either construction makes good sense; but it seems to me that that which is found in our common version is the most simple and natural.
..............................................................
Adam Clarke’s Commentary
Revelation 13:8
Slain from the foundation of the world—That is, of the Christian world; for this has been shown to be the meaning of all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. The year of the crucifixion is properly the commencement of Christianity, as the apostles then first began to promulgate the religion of Christ with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. But as Jesus Christ was in the Divine purpose appointed from the foundation of the world to redeem man by his blood, he therefore is, in a very eminent sense, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, i.e., from the creation.
.................................................................
Jamiesson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
Revelation 13:8
Lamb slain from the foundation of the world -- The Greek order of words favors this translation. He was slain in the Father's eternal counsels: compare 1Pe 1:19, 20, virtually parallel. The other way of connecting the words is, "Written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb slain." So in Rev. 17:8. The elect. The former is in the Greek more obvious and simple. "Whatsoever virtue was in the sacrifices, did operate through Messiah's death alone. As He was "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world," so all atonements ever made were only effectual by His blood" [BISHOP PEARSON, Exposition of the Creed].A Commentary: Critical, Experimental, and Practical on the Old and New Testaments.
18 “For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers,
19 “but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.
20 “He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake” (1 Peter 1:18-20, NIV).
8 “The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come” (Revelation 17:8, NIV).
........................................................................
The Easy-to-Read Commentary Series
Revelation 13:8
In the phrase “the lamb who was slaughtered before the creation of the world,” we are given interesting insight that could be overlooked by the impact of the first part of the verse. This is another evidence of Jesus’ eternal coexistence with the Father and Spirit. The Lord Jesus Christ was not introduced onto the scene in the middle of the world’s history as a reactionary decision by God to redeem mankind unto Himself. The Lord God Almighty had already purposed in His heart to send His Son as the sacrifice for mankind’s sins before the creation of the world. He had determined to send Himself into the world as the solution (Christ’s sacrificial atonement) before the problem (the fall of man into sin) was ever manifested.
..................................................................
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Old Abe,
I will respond to this one statement: (As to the rest of your post, I think you need to read it again and see if that is what you really mean, and are you serious ??)
The argument over covenants is foolishness .
The concept of covenant is well developed and frequently applied in the Bible, both old and new testaments. The covenant is the basis for all God's interactions with humankind, and it forms the framework for all our doctrines and for the plan of salvation. To study the covenant is an excellent way to begin to understand theology and to organize your thinking about the Bible story.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Elaine,
when the Bible says that Jesus is the Son of the Father, that is declaring that He is Divine. Here is a very important verse supporting that Jesus is Divine:
6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, Philippians 2:6 (NIV)
I checked with several commentaries, and they all agree that this verse points to His divinity. (I'm sure that you can find some commentaries that say the opposite, which would not surprise me!) As I mentioned in another post, Jesus raised the dead, He healed people by a word, and He showed His glory in that He was "merciful, gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth."
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Hubb, lets cut to the chase, you are invested in this pre Eden Covenant which I agree is better called the Plan of Salvation. No problem with believing that God had a plan for the worst case scenario. But to suggest that Christ would only come to save us if contracted or covenanted to do so, gives a strange yew to your view of God and His Son. I still believe your Forum is ill named and confuses the discussion of the named covenants in the Bible. A lot of the scholars you point do not say there was a covenant that God used to nudge His Son when the fullness of time had come.
Offline
Bob,
August 13, 1950 I stood in front of 150 people facing a no-nonsense minister named Cornelius Commodore Cantwell, when he directed, I said "I do!"
There was no one with a shotgun in the crowd. There was no great hulking brother standing by to make sure that I said it right. I said it willingly. I was glad to marry the girl of my dreams. No one had to push me. If anything, I was pushing them.
When the Father and the Son met in council, the Father did not have to "push" the Son. After all, it was the Son who was the active agent in Creation in the first place. He was pushing to save , to support, and to redeem His Creation. I think you have it all wrong to say that Jesus needed to be pushed. They made it a covenant to reassure mankind. God the Father and the Son were serious about their intent to redeem their Creation.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Bob,
did you read my long post. I made it especially for you. I do not deny that there are some scholars that deny a pre-creation council. I just think that they were wrong. As for www.everlastingcovenant.com -- I was lucky to get that domain name. I think I could get a good price now if I wanted to sell it. I got there just in time.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Bob,
As for "named covenants," I wish that I could continue with the covenant discussion, but I guess I will have to give it up as anything else I say would look bad where people will not accept the cooperation between Father and Son in the overall covenant.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Important to this discussion as well as effective group dynamics to know the difference between consense and compromise:
So, how do you move your team from compromise to consensus? Here are some options:
• Review interests and focus on what can be done, not what can’t be done
• Take a break, have a laugh, get people moving around
• If one party is threatening some type of ultimatum, discuss what it would look like. What are the consequences? See if you can agree, as a team, that those consequences should be avoided.
• Access level of dissatisfaction in a group: ask people to rank the proposed solution on scale of 1-3 or 1-4. This is used towards the end to get an idea of whether an idea is worth pursuing and how much time it will take to reach consensus. Ask those that rank the solutions lowest for their potential solutions.
• If you find yourself with one dissenter, or “outlier” as discussions progress, ask the outlier how they want to handle the fact that they are the dissenting voice. A challenge with consensus is that we give the outlier a lot of power, so this is a good strategy when the group begins to turn against the outlier.
• One final strategy is to give the decision to a third party. Can’t decide on a name for your project? Give it to Marketing. Can’t agree on a fair timeline? Ask a team lead from another project to look at your information and make the call. This can either serve as a tiebreaker, or get your team back to the table to work it out themselves.
http://www.theproject-coach.com/2009/09 … ompromise/
You don't have to sacrifice principle when arriving at a conscensus. Sure a better plan that being an obstructionist. The Church has to seek common ground with dissenters, whether talking of this thread's topic or a political issue Obama and the Republicans will need to understand to move the US forwar, and I think it applies to the GC and NAD.
Offline
Bob,
Obama and the Republicans will HAVE to come to a compromise. This is a political compromise. A political compromise is quite different from a compromise over truth. In this we need to recognize that our forum is not analagous to the GC or to NAD! Our forum seldom arrives at truth, it is more a simple exchange of ideas with no one changing their minds. The thing we desire in forum discussions is accuracy in reading and understanding what an opponent says, and being courteous in the response.
Is there a third party available to monitor the discussion of the Covenant? There are, but they are all busy, and most are already committed to their own opinion of the Covenant. The only thing that can be monitored is what I mentioned above: accuracy and courtesy in our responses. This type of monitoring takes time. J.R. Layman was good in the degree of monitoring that he did -- and was willing to take the flak that resulted.
When it comes to the covenant, it is a detailed subject and is not understood by anyone on this forum except you and I. So, maybe we are at a stalemate?? I am beginning to think that I would best spend my time working on my website, where from 30 to 50 people will access every day. This may be best as I don't see that it is likely for us to come to a consensus, or even if it is desirable. And there are other topics of great interest where I am not so deeply "invested."
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Hubb, I didn't find any place on your site for comments. Is it only a one-way site? With nothing but one's personal opinions, there is no room for questions or alternative positions. But may that is the original intent.
Offline
Elaine,
You are a smart person. I have a "Contact us" section of the main menu. I have put notes on every page inviting people to "email the author" (though, due to lack of response, I may have taken them off). I have also invited them to use my special forum for the covenant. Again very little response except for an occasional email which I answer, and then correspondence stops. Because of your interest, I will put an invitation to email me, or use the forum on the Home page, and on the Table of Contents.
I will have to admit, that because of its long history, the frequent presentations of the covenant, and the general confusion about the covenant, it has become technical and confusing to most people. I make every effort to make it simple, which I think it is -- but the result is not acceptable to many because it crosses their preconceived notions.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Elaine, I just checked. The "contact us" is on the main menu on every page. An invitation to use the forum is on the Table of Contents and on the Home page. Do you have any suggestions?
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Elaine,
I read your post again. I see that you raised the question of "alternative opinions." I don't think that would be wise on a website. It would be much more appropriate on a forum or a blog. And, actually, forums and blogs get a lot more attention than we realize -- especially if it is an active forum. Just for fun, write your name in the search box of Google and see what comes up. You may be surprised to see yourself quoted a number of times!
And BTW, my contact us is actually "email the Author" which may be more clear to some people.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Hubb, yes I have done that!
When comments sent are private and not displayed, it becomes merely another "sermon." Which is why the Adventist Today and Spectrum blog are so busy--and often the comments are superior to the essay, and unlike a sermon in church (which many find disappointing and cannot ask questions) the ability to question a writer is what makes a site lively, but evidently this model is not the one preferred.
Offline
Hi Elaine,
I must admit that you are right. I have a purpose in studying the covenant and a goal in mind. It would be distracting to my purpose to make discussion a significant part of my website. And, if I opened my website to open discussions, I doubt that there would be very many takers.
As you have noticed, I am willing and interested to discuss these things in a forum -- Atomorrow, or my forum "Gospel and Covenant" or even in the 1888msc forum! Like you, I would like very much if those who preach a sermon were available to discuss the sermon topic. We did have a preacher like that in Turlock, California. Noel Gardner was his name. He tried to interest people in a discussion after the sermon and had few takers. Times were different then, and theological topics were much less of an issue than they are now.
I have started discussions on the Covenant on the Club Adventist and the Adventist Online forums. Response was small. On Heavenly Sanctuary there was strong and immediate opposition from one person who had well developed ideas of his own. On Atomorrow forum, Bob is the one person who has a strong and consistent interest. We don't agree, but he is willing to talk about it and that is what makes a forum tick.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Hubb, read and compare these two articles in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_theology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant_Theology
This is pretty much where the differences between you as a Covenant Theologian and I as a New Covenant Theologian stand.
I was impressed that the contributors for the Covenant Theology article admit when they are surmising and actually give the texts to help you understand their logic.
However, the New Covenant Theology is where I stand. If SDAs or yourself want to understand this matter, I believe this ia a fantastic place to start. Hubb, you, and the SDA Church are Covenant Theologians. While Elaine and myself tend to be New Covenant Theologians. (Elaine, I'll let you speak for yourself, but this is my opinion)
If the SDA church would look at New Covenant Theology, they could straighten out a lot of apparent contradictions in the Bible as they and you believe it, in my opinion. It is relatively new, but I believe it will get stronger as time progresses.
Last edited by bob_2 (02-10-11 11:03 pm)
Offline
Hubb, you might add that New Covenant Theology discussion at ClubAdventist.com ,set, I believe, a record of over 400 pages of dialogue until one of the moderators there chose to convince Stan to charge everyone that posts on ClubAdventist which is why I stopped posting as Rondo, which I am sure you figured out. It is there for all to read. The good, the bad, and the ugly participants. I have a thick skin as long as people are ruly, which they weren't toward the end. And I refuse to pay to participate in these discussion, although I did help Ryan start this .net cite as did some others.
Here is the theological discussion:
http://www.clubadventist.com/forum/ubbt … Post386856
Last edited by bob_2 (02-10-11 11:26 pm)
Offline
I was cut off about here:
Offline
Bob, how can we live under two or three covenants? As I understand it, we are all, as Christians, living under the New Covenant promised us. Jesus was never part of the old covenant(s). He inaugurated the New Covenant, which effectively abolished any other covenant.
Offline