Why do SDA’s teach that the Covenant

Icyspark

Active member
Why do SDA’s teach that “the Covenant from Sinai” is still in force?


A covenant is merely an agreement and the agreement is what was faulty (i.e. "God found fault with the people . . . because they did not remain faithful to [His] covenant"). It should be obvious to any unbiased person that a perfect God didn't find fault with His perfect law (i.e. what was covenanted/agreed upon by both parties should be observed.). Interlopers who self identify as something they're not promote false teaching to, if possible, deceive the elect.

Speaking of the Ten Commandments Paul refers to them in the present tense calling them "holy, righteous and good." So it is apparent that the covenant/agreement came to an end, not what was agreed upon.

I pray this helps.

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark
 
A covenant is merely an agreement and the agreement is what was faulty (i.e. "God found fault with the people . . . because they did not remain faithful to [His] covenant"). It should be obvious to any unbiased person that a perfect God didn't find fault with His perfect law (i.e. what was covenanted/agreed upon by both parties should be observed.). Interlopers who self identify as something they're not promote false teaching to, if possible, deceive the elect.

Speaking of the Ten Commandments Paul refers to them in the present tense calling them "holy, righteous and good." So it is apparent that the covenant/agreement came to an end, not what was agreed upon.

I pray this helps.

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

So, why do SDA’s teach that the “agreement from Sinai” is still in force?
 

Icyspark

Active member
Conversely and more appropriately, why don’t you show us the SDA’s teaching that the covenant from Sinai is obsolete and therefore not in force.


Pretenders who present themselves as SDA should do a better job of understanding what SDAs believe and teach.

There once was a poster on CARM who presented himself as not only a former Adventist, but also as a lawyer who supposedly tried cases before the Supreme Court. The posts from this individual constantly contradicted both of these claims. He knew nothing about the use of evidence to substantiate his contentious contentions and he knew next to nothing about the denomination of which he claimed to have been a member for years. The false teachings of false teachers condemn them.

In your case your false teaching has been confronted. Your response? Oh, I don't know . . . how about we change the subject and see if anybody notices. :rolleyes:

Let's see it. Where's your quote that SDA's teach the "agreement from Sinai" is still in force. You placed "the agreement from Sinai" in quotes. Let's see the quote. You can't, so you won't. SDA's don't teach that. That's just you making stuff up. The fact that you don't validate your contentious contention is indicative of your own awareness of your false teaching.
 
Pretenders who present themselves as SDA should do a better job of understanding what SDAs believe and teach.

There once was a poster on CARM who presented himself as not only a former Adventist, but also as a lawyer who supposedly tried cases before the Supreme Court. The posts from this individual constantly contradicted both of these claims. He knew nothing about the use of evidence to substantiate his contentious contentions and he knew next to nothing about the denomination of which he claimed to have been a member for years. The false teachings of false teachers condemn them.

In your case your false teaching has been confronted. Your response? Oh, I don't know . . . how about we change the subject and see if anybody notices. :rolleyes:

Let's see it. Where's your quote that SDA's teach the "agreement from Sinai" is still in force. You placed "the agreement from Sinai" in quotes. Let's see the quote. You can't, so you won't. SDA's don't teach that. That's just you making stuff up. The fact that you don't validate your contentious contention is indicative of your own awareness of your false teaching.

Icy-Icy-Icy.......

I used the word “agreement” since you insist that a covenant is an agreement. (I agree with that view).

Since we are discussing the agreement/covenant from Sinai.......

- Are you making the assertion that the agreement/covenant from Sinai is NOT IN FORCE and that SDA’s teach that it is not in force for the Christian?
 

Formersda

Active member
Icy-Icy-Icy.......

I used the word “agreement” since you insist that a covenant is an agreement. (I agree with that view).

Since we are discussing the agreement/covenant from Sinai.......

- Are you making the assertion that the agreement/covenant from Sinai is NOT IN FORCE and that SDA’s teach that it is not in force for the Christian?
Ahh Icy is back Christian SDA and will refute what you say by not answering and throwing straw man arguments. And say you have no evidence, well not the evidence that icy wants to hear.

SDAS teach that not all of that law was made obsolete, the laws tithing to the priests are applicable (found in the book on the side of the ark) the clean an unclean foods are applicable again in the book of the law which is on the side of the ark.

The covenant at Sinai was given to Israel and Israel only, there where no sabbath laws before but they make an argument out of silence because they don’t read the bible entirely.

Deuteronomy 11:1 states very clearly that Israel are to always keep His charge, His statutes, His ordinances and His commandments. You cannot add to or takeaway from all of this. So you have to keep the whole Law not just parts you think are applicable.
 

Icyspark

Active member
Icy-Icy-Icy.......

I used the word “agreement” since you insist that a covenant is an agreement. (I agree with that view).

Since we are discussing the agreement/covenant from Sinai.......

- Are you making the assertion that the agreement/covenant from Sinai is NOT IN FORCE and that SDA’s teach that it is not in force for the Christian?


Let's just go back a couple posts to establish yet again your brazen contention about what SDA's supposedly believe. Pay attention to your misuse of quote marks which are apparently used to give the impression that Adventists actually say this:

So, why do SDA’s teach that the agreement from Sinai is still in force?

I asked for evidence to substantiate this👆 quote. As with the individual who claimed to be a former Adventist (who knew essentially nothing about Adventism) and who claimed he tried cases before the Supreme Court (but knew essentially nothing about the use evidence) your response likewise illustrates this same lack of SDA knowledge or the ability to supply evidence to support your claims. This indicates to me that your quote was not intended to represent reality but to misrepresent and mislead but ultimately misfires. What point is there in my trying to have a serious dialog with someone who intentionally does such things? Icy none.

For any serious seeker of the truth they may read the thread I started titled, "The New Covenant," to understand why there was a necessity for a change (Spoiler alert: it wasn't because the law was faulty).
 
By your straw man request you leave the inference that you believe that the first covenant (agreement)/covenant(agreement) from Sinai is obsolete and no longer in force.

That flies in the face of the teaching of Ellen White that the covenant(agreement) from Sinai is still in force.

Here is her statement.

👉Ellen White wrote: “The covenant that God made with his people at Sinai is to be our refuge and defense.” “And Moses came and called for the elders of the people and laid before their faces all these words and all the people answered together and said, “all that the Lord has spoken we will do“.” “This covenant is of just as much force today as it was when the Lord made it with ancient Israel“ (Ellen G white, in the Southern Watchman, March 1, 1904, page 142)
 
Top