Please respond to the points of the post
Forgive me Friend... I'm so use to dealing with people like
@GWH who are very serious about corrupting the Word of God, to support their Religion of Disobedience, to our Creator God and His Covenants of Obedience, for our salvation, that I just skimmed your post, and at first it sounded like you were reasoning for "Disobedience" so I gave my usual rebuttal .... Sorry ! Let me address your points.
The Origin of the New Covenant
Your post claims: The New Covenant originates in Deuteronomy 29–30, where God made a covenant "besides the Covenant that He made with the children of Israel in Horeb, Mt Sinai" (
Deut 29:1). TSo you treat this Moab covenant as the foundational revelation of the New Covenant.
This New Covenant is
not a new arrangement originating at Moab. It is the
everlasting covenant of grace that began with Adam after the Fall and was
renewed to Abraham.
"Though this covenant was made with Adam and renewed to Abraham, it could not be ratified until the death of Christ. It had existed by the promise of God since the first intimation of redemption had been given; it had been accepted by faith; yet when ratified by Christ, it is called a 'new' covenant." EGW - Patriarchs and Prophets, Chapter 32:
The Abrahamic covenant — sealed by the promise
"In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed" (
Genesis 22:18) — is the covenant of grace. It was
ratified by Christ's blood, and therefore called "new." We can
not trace the New Covenant's origin to Deuteronomy 29–30. Rather, the Moab covenant as essentially a
renewal of the Sinai (old) covenant, not the inauguration of the new.
You are building your entire argument on Deuteronomy 29–30 as the
source of the New Covenant, the New Covenant's originated centuries earlier,
in Eden and with Abraham.
The Old Covenant vs. New Covenant Framework
You claim
Deuteronomy 29:1 introduces a
new covenant distinct from the Horeb covenant, and this is the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8.
The "old covenant" is the arrangement made at Sinai where Israel declared,
"All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient" (
Exodus 24:7). It was a covenant based on
human promises — Israel's pledge to obey — which they inevitably broke because of their unregenerate hearts. The "new covenant" is based on
God's promises —
forgiveness of sins, grace to renew the heart, and the Spirit enabling obedience.
Deuteronomy 29 Moab covenant is part of the
old covenant framework — a renewal of the Sinai arrangement — because it still operated under the same system of law and sacrifice. The true New Covenant, could not be established until Christ's death ratified the Abrahamic covenant of grace.
Statutes Continuing Under the New Covenant?
You claim: The New Covenant writes "Commandments
and Statutes" on the heart (citing
Deut 30:10), but excludes "Judgments" (ceremonial/sacrificial ordinances). You are arguing for a three-part division: Commandments (Decalogue) + Statutes (continuing) + Judgments (abolished).
It's a
two-law framework, not a three-part one:
- The Moral Law (Ten Commandments) — eternal, unchanging, written on the heart under the New Covenant
- The Ceremonial Law (statutes, ordinances, sacrificial system) — temporary, nailed to the cross at Calvary
We can't separate "statutes" from "judgments" in the way your attempting to. Both statutes and judgments that pertained to the ceremonial/sacrificial system were part of the
ceremonial law that ended at the cross. It's not true that "statutes" as a category continue while "judgments" are abolished. You are attempting to retain statutes while discarding judgments creates a distinction.
This is particularly important because you use this distinction to argue that certain statutes (dietary laws, etc.) continue under the New Covenant. Clean/unclean dietary principles continue, but this as a
health and moral principle, not as a continuing "statute" from the Book of the Law.
Discrepancy —> The Basis for Gentile Inclusion
You claims: Deuteronomy 29:11,
15 ("also with him that is not here with us this day") is the proof that the New Covenant includes Gentiles, and that this "completely negates the naysayers argument that the Gentiles were not considered in the Covenants given to Israel."
While we agrees that God's covenant was never meant to be ethnically exclusive, ... Gentile inclusion
primarily in the Abrahamic covenant, not in Deuteronomy 29. The promise to Abraham —
"In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed" (
Genesis 22:18) — is the key text for demonstrating that
the covenant of grace was always intended for all nations. "This same covenant [the covenant of grace] was renewed to Abraham in the promise 'In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.'"
We Adventists understand
Deuteronomy 29:15 as referring to
future generations of Israelites, not primarily to Gentiles. The phrase "him that is not here with us this day" referred to Israel's descendants who were not yet born — the covenant was made with the nation across generations. While strangers were included in the covenant community (as the text correctly notes from
Deut 29:11), This primary argument for universal inclusion comes through the Abrahamic promise, not through the Moab covenant.
This is not necessarily a contradiction as we reach the same conclusion (Gentiles are included) — but arrive there by
different routes, and you overstates the significance of
Deuteronomy 29:15 as a prooftext for Gentile inclusion.
Discrepancy — "His Word, His Law, and His Spirit — It Is All the Same"
You claim: "His Word is all He has said, His Spirit is all that He is. His Law is all that He has taught and written. It is all the same."
There is close relationships between Word, Law, and Spirit, BUT ! ... there is a
clear functional distinctions between them:
- The Law (Ten Commandments) is the standard of righteousness — the reflection of God's character
- The Spirit is the divine agent that empowers obedience and transforms the heart
- The Word is the revelation of God's will through Scripture
You can not collapse these into one undifferentiated concept. For example, ... the Spirit enables us to keep the law, but the Spirit is not the law itself. The law reveals God's character; the Spirit empowers us to conform to it. Conflating these categories risks confusion about the distinct roles each plays in the believer's experience.
Where we Agree;
It's worth noting several points where we are in agreement.
- The Ten Commandments (Decalogue) continue under the New Covenant as God's moral standard
- The ceremonial/sacrificial system (judgments/ordinances) was abolished by Christ's sacrifice
- The New Covenant involves God's Law written on the heart
- Heart circumcision and the work of the Spirit enable obedience
- Clean/unclean food distinctions remain relevant (though we arrive at this by different reasoning)
- Strangers/Gentiles were included in God's covenant purposes
Summary ~> The most significant differences center on where the New Covenant originates (Deuteronomy 29 vs. the Abrahamic/Edenic covenant of grace), how the laws are categorized (three-part vs. two-law framework), and whether statutes as a category continue under the New Covenant.
Again ! I apologies for "assuming" that you were a typical apostate Protestant Christian, supporting their Religion of Disobedience, of the Antichrist spirit, in this Worlds Last Days, right before Christ emanate Return. Maranatha !
†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ~~ Sabbath Blessings ~~ ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††