| Author | Message | ||
| Jonah Registered user Username: Jonah Post Number: 5 Registered: 3-2006 |
A friend of mine who works for Andrews University emailed me the following story. Andrews University Press announced the release of a new book with timely and powerful implications for Sabbath evangelism -- In Granite or Ingrained? What the Old and New Covenants Reveal about the Gospel, the Law, and the Sabbath -- by Skip MacCarty, long-time associate pastor for evangelism at Pioneer Memorial Church. To read more... here's the link: http://www.andrews.edu/news/2007/2/maccarty_book.html enjoy  | ||
| Jonah Registered user Username: Jonah Post Number: 6 Registered: 3-2006 |
P.S. My friend said that they sent this email to the entire Andrews Campus. I wonder if the Sadventist church will be using this book as a method of keeping people in the pit. | ||
| Brian3 Registered user Username: Brian3 Post Number: 82 Registered: 8-2005 |
Interesting that they admit the effect of the special proclamation mailing. "Adventist pastors and members across the country will find MacCarty's book particularly timely in light of questions their fellow members may be asking," Knott said. In December, an organization of former Adventists sponsored a large mailing of a special issue of its magazine to church members in many parts of the United States. According to MacCarty, most of the group's long-standing attacks on the Sabbath, sometimes echoed by other evangelicals, are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what the New Testament means in its presentation of the old and new covenants." | ||
| Brian3 Registered user Username: Brian3 Post Number: 83 Registered: 8-2005 |
"MacCarty's work addresses the basic issue of the covenants as the foundation for a proper understanding of the relationship of the gospel and the Sabbath. And on this understanding of the unity of the two covenants" Seems to me the Bible only talks about the two covenants in contrast, never in unity. Am I wrong here? | ||
| Tkmommy Registered user Username: Tkmommy Post Number: 26 Registered: 1-2007 |
Brian, that's what I was thinking...Paul always contrasts the two covenants, so I'm curious as to what this "unity" is. I'm debating ordering this book. But I might end up confused unless someone on here reads it as well at can discuss it. Anyone planning on reading it? P.S. Waiting on River with one of his "Here, have a book...." posts!  | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 824 Registered: 8-2004  |
The 'unity' that I was taught as an SDA (and SDARM) member was that the 'old covenant' was the promise the people gave God that 'all that thou hast said we will do' (keep the law in other words) and that the new covenant was that the law would be written in our hearts. The unifying factor in other words was the law. I'll be interested to see if that's what's being taught here as well. | ||
| Freeatlast Registered user Username: Freeatlast Post Number: 514 Registered: 5-2002 |
Unless they can amalgamate (pardon the intended pun) the bondwoman with the freewoman, they have no reason to exist. | ||
| Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj Post Number: 116 Registered: 1-2006  |
I think Gerhard Hasel (father or son or both) also wrote on the covenants. I'm away from home, but have glanced through that book a few years ago, and also received some of Skip's materials a few years ago. Without being able to review them just now, I think Skip focused on the "DNA" of the covenants, trying to show how they flow together in a continuous line. Not much room for the story about the wineskins or the new patch here. My objection to Hasel's ideas were similar, and I recall thinking while looking through his book that Genesis 12 talks about the land and Gen 15 about the descendants and then Abraham asks "how can I know" that you'll do it, and then we have the story about God and Jesus, represented by the smoking furnace and the burning lamp making the covenant. I think salvation is implied here--see v. 6 Hasel lost me. I remember thinking when I looked at his book that he doesn't seem to understand that Abraham was sleeping and did not negotiate the terms of our eternal salvation with God. There was a reason God put Abraham asleep--so he couldn't try to negotiate anything--do any work or make any promises. When he woke up the terms of our eternal salvation were a done deal, and Abraham, representing humanity, hadn't done any work or made any promises regarding our part in obtaining salvation. This is great! It means we don't do any work or make any promises either--we just accept God's done deal by faith--by believing. Jesus said the work we do is to believe! We know that the the Sinai covenant was a Christless covenant because only the smoking furnace (the mountain smoked like a furnace--the sign of God's presence) was present, and not the burning lamp (representing Jesus). When SDAs preach that only those who keep the sabbath on earth will keep it with God in heaven they don't realize that the sabbath was the sign of a hopeless, Christless covenant. The rest of the people in heaven will be children of the promise--see Galatians 4:21-31. There's big problems when we try to link the old and new covenants. Hebrews 8 makes it clear that the old covenant was faulty, that God wanted to change it, and that regardless of what our friends at Andrews say, it is obsolete. Bob | ||
| Randyg Registered user Username: Randyg Post Number: 366 Registered: 12-2004 |
Hey Jonah, Thank-you for posting this announcement. Several things struck me as I read it. Initially I noted that this book is described has "timely and powerful implications for Sabbath evangelism". As I read throught the whole announcement Jesus is not mentioned once. They are to evangelize about the Sabbath. For our Adventist friends, this continues to be the central focus of the gospel, as they understand it. Now it takes Skip MacCarty to interpret the "Spirit and intent of the Covenants". It seems strange, as a simple reading of the Bible in context makes the covenants perfectly clear. It seems unfortunate that it takes 344 pages to make the case that we cannot accept the Bible as written, and that really all those tens of thousands of "other" theologians have it all wrong. Now I am not surprised that this book has received endorsements from faculty members at Southern and Andrews. It would be surprising if they used as "endorsements", the responses of most Covenantal scholars, who no doubt would disagree with the conclusions of this book. It is also interesting that it received an "endorsement" from Wheaton Professor Daniel Block (a fellow Canadian I might add). It would be interesting to read his whole response, instead of part of one sentence. It seems to me that if he found this book to be so compelling he would now be a Sabbath keeper, and an Adventist.That doesn't appear to be the case. It is also interesting that the use of a non-Adventist scholar somehow adds credibility to this book. I will be curious to find out if that was his intent. In fact I think I will email him, and ask him if he agrees with the premise and conclusions of this book....it will be interesting to hear his response. I will report back what I hear, as I am sure others would be interested in whether he agrees with this book. Thank-you again, Randy | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5388 Registered: 12-2003  |
Jonah, thanks for posting this link. About three or so years ago, I received a manuscript copy of much of this book from someone who was at Andrews. I didn't read it in depth because this person needed a rather quick response before speaking with Skip about the subject. I do remember, however, in my "speed-reading" perusal of the document, that Skip concluded that the New Covenant doesn't fully take efffect until Jesus comes again and we are glorified. Until then, as Mary surmised, the law is the unifying factor. We still live by the law, but instead of its being external, it's now "internal"óand only upon glorification will we be fully experiencing the freedom of the New Covenant without our sinful flesh. I know that this book as a response to members' questions and reactions to the Proclamation mailing were an advertised focus of the Michigan ministerial conference last month. You know, confusion will reign until people look to Jesus. Only in Him is the veil removed. And when that veil comes off, the clarity and reality of the new covenant as it is NOW in effect in Christ-followers is astonishing. Colleen | ||
| Bobalou Registered user Username: Bobalou Post Number: 46 Registered: 2-2005 |
Colleen, If I am not mistken Messianics believe that the New Covenant doesn't fully take effect until Jesus returns. This is one of their reasons for Sabbath observance. Maybe Skip is borowing from them now that all else has been refuted. boB | ||
| U2bsda Registered user Username: U2bsda Post Number: 457 Registered: 11-2004 |
Wow, the spirit of deception in Adventism is strong! It has taken me awhile to realize the hold it has. My heart aches for my family stuck behind the veil. I sit from the outside looking in wondering how I can have hope for my loved ones to see beyond the veil. But then I realize that I must have hope because here I sit the once good little Adventist - Adventist no more. | ||
| Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj Post Number: 118 Registered: 1-2006 |
Bobalou, or anyone else reading here, I thought covenants were in full effect when they were ratified. Didn't Jesus' blood ratify the New Covenant? Am I missing something? It's my understanding that an agreement is binding when it's signed, even if includes provisions that take effect in the future. A forward look to the time when everyone knows the Lord for himself does not convince me that believers are not fully covered or are not "in Christ." I'm not sure I understand the link here unless I'm overlooking the obvious--the problem with the veil--as Colleen mentioned. Bob | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 729 Registered: 7-2004  |
Yes, Jesus' blood ratified the New Covenant. In fact, we remember this New Covenant in Communion. "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." Luke 22:20. | ||
| Joyfulheart Registered user Username: Joyfulheart Post Number: 11 Registered: 10-2006 |
I have a few thoughts: 1. "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)5Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;" 1 Corinthians 10:3-5 and 2. Finally, (S)be strong in the Lord and in (T)the strength of His might. 11(U)Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the (V)schemes of the devil. 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this (AA)darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. 14Stand firm therefore, HAVING GIRDED YOUR LOINS WITH TRUTH, and HAVING (AH)PUT ON THE BREASTPLATE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, 15and having shod YOUR FEET WITH THE PREPARATION OF THE GOSPEL OF PEACE; 16in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17And take THE HELMET OF SALVATION, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. Ephesians 6:10 - 17 There is a veil, but veils are lifted in Christ! I think Colleen is right that we can't change the church, but we have the weapons we need to pull down the strongholds. Our armor is the best. We belong to Christ! Words do not begin the express the discouragement and anger I felt while reading that e-mail. I heard the "In granite or ingrained" presentation at the MI camp meeting at GLAA last June. The whole time, I wanted to scream, "But that's not what the Bible teaches!". I suspected that information would be made widely available, but now that it's here, unbelievable sadness has filled me. I plan on fighting - on my knees. | ||
| Joyfulheart Registered user Username: Joyfulheart Post Number: 12 Registered: 10-2006 |
The stop loss program here has been pretty comprehensive. Please are leaving the church because of: 1. Ellen White's failing the test of the prophet. Their answer More Than a Prophet - not be a Berean and check her work out with what the Bible teaches. 2. The Investigative Judgment being completely unscriptural. Their answer, the past SS lesson on 1844 and the the Judgment. According to Desmond Ford an unmitigated disaster. 3. Learning the truth about the ten commandments and the covenant system. Their answer - not read and study the Bible. Here's another book In Granite or Ingrained. Let's give them credit for a complete try to stop the loss program. They must be running scared to pull out all the stops like this - and pray. Their offensive weapons are books. Our offensive weapon is the Word of God. The shield of faith will extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Let's pray - now more than ever. | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1539 Registered: 7-2003 |
B used to be adamant the new covenant was not fully in force because there was still sin in the world, and when the new covenant took affect, there would be no sin. For what it's worth... | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1711 Registered: 10-2004  |
Bob, I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say about the covenants. Genesis 15:17 (NIV) says: "When the sun had set and darkness had fallen, a smoking firepot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces." And the CEV has a footnote which says: "Genesis 15:17 smoking cooking pot: One possible meaning for the difficult Hebrew text. The smoke and fire represent the presence of the LORD." And in Exodus 19:8 it says: "Now Mount Sinai was all in smoke because the LORD descended upon it in fire; and its smoke ascended like the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mountain quaked violently." (NASB.) So again, we have both smoke and fire. I also don't see how we can separate the smoke and fire into two things, though, or say that one represents "God" and the other represents "Jesus." And since Jesus is God, how could the presence of God appear, without it being Christ's presence? (Of course, when I say "Christ" I am talking about before He came to earth as Christ/Messiah.) In other words, how could there be a "Christless" covenant, if God is involved, and Christ is God? Or am I misunderstanding what you were trying to say? I mean I understand what you are saying about the Old (Sinai) Covenant being a hopeless covenant, in that it was not a part of salvation but only pointed forward to Christ and was supposed to show them their need for a Savior. But since the covenant was between God and Israel, then I would definitely have to say that it was between Jesus and Israel. Jeremy | ||
| Bobalou Registered user Username: Bobalou Post Number: 47 Registered: 2-2005 |
Bobj said "I thought covenants were in full effect when they were ratified. Didn't Jesus' blood ratify the New Covenant?" We formers understand the covenants and that Jesus ratified the New Covenant, but sad to say much of Christianity is still confused mostly about the 10. Had I understood Matt. 5 and the book of Galatians 40 some years ago I wouldn't be here tonight commenting. I wanted to do God's will and I was taught the 10 Commandments from childhood. When approached by a SDA with the 4th commandment question I fell hook, line and sinker. My rational was that if they were correct concerning the day, they must be correct in their other doctrines. What a mistake. The Covenants are so very important to understand and I believe should be taught immediately after teaching a person about salvation in Jesus. | ||
| Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj Post Number: 120 Registered: 1-2006 |
Jeremy I recall hearing this discussed by one of the professors at Andrews in the early 70s, and read more about it in book 1 of 3 entitled "Abraham: Messenger to the 21st Century" by Sam Pestes. Sam also develops this a bit in his chapter "The Firey Sinai Contract." It was Sam that really drove home the point about it being a Christless covenant, and he mentioned the obvious position of modern day Jews who have no trouble believing that Sinai was a Christless covenant! It almost makes me laugh--it's so obvious and I missed it so completely--that Jewish scholars would agree, yet I had never realized the significance of their opinion until Sam mentioned it. As I recall from the Andrews discussion, the idea was that in scripture Jesus is symbolized by a lamp, which correlates to the burning torch--an ancient lamp. For the sake of readers of this post, I'll share a couple key tests, although I don't think there is much doubt on this part of the connection: Ps:27 The Lord is my light Isa 60:19 Lord shall be . . . an everlsting light John 1:9 true light, which lighteth every man John 8:12 I am the Light of the world Rev 21:23 Lamb is the light I need to do a little more study on this to be sure, but I read recently that in Genesis 15 a number of terms and expressions occur for the first time, including the first reference to a "vision" the words "fear not" (the equivalent "be not afraid" is used more than a hundred times in scripture). It's also the place God is first mentioned as a shield, and the first occurence of the Divine title "Adonai Jehovah"--Lord God v.2 and for the first time the words "believed," "counted" or reckoned, and "righteousness." I mentioned in the earlier post my simple assertion that salvation is encompassed in v 6 where "righteousness" is introduced. I am not a Bible scholar, but that's what it looks like to me. I'm not sure I am giving the answer your question deserves because of the smoke and fire symbols, as you pointed out. I think it is more by inference, looking back on Genesis 15 and reading into those symbols, and then projecting forward to Sinai and noting the lack of the burning torch. Sam seems to follow this same logic, and he makes the point that in Hebrews 8:7 the absence of Christ is the actual reason why the Sinai covenant is faulty. But your question stands. I should study the fire symbol (pillar of fire, God as a consuming fire) and see if Jesus is symbolized, even by inference. Could there be overlap in the symbols we project back on Gen 15? If so, we may not find a clear answer. Very good question, Jeremy, and I will be thinking about it for awhile! Maybe others readers can help clarify about these symbols in Genesis 15. Bob | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 731 Registered: 7-2004 |
You are so right, Bobalou! Sure wish other churches could easily recognize this. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5394 Registered: 12-2003 |
This is interesting to me: I also read Sam Pestes's explanation of the smoking pot and blazing torch passing between the sacrificial animals in Genesis 15. I read it several years ago when we were on the cusp of transitioning, and I found the analysis of the furnace representing God and the torch both compelling and persistently troubling. The compelling part was Sam's pointing out that Christ was part of the Abrahamic covenant, not part of the Sinai covenant, and definitely part of the new covenant. The troubling part was that if God made that covenant with Himself, there was a third Person missing: the Holy Spirit. Jeremy, your post above helped me define my lingering question about the symbols. I realize now that seeing the Father and Jesus as separate Persons participating in the covenant is a picture that (I believe) grows out of the Adventist-conditioned view that the Trinity is three indiviual "Gods". In reality, God is One. While God is three Persons comprising one God, God is One Being, not three. The Abrahamic covenant was made between God (the Three-in-one) and Abraham. The New Covenant likewise involves the entire Trinity. The Son became incarnate and represented humanity in order to reunite us with God. Now we all have access to the Father through Jesus by one Spirit (Ephesians 2:18). The Sinai covenant, as I understand it, was not imperfect because it was "Christless". It was imperfect because it involved human promises and was a covenant of shadows (see Hebrews 6:13-20). But since God is One, we cannot say Christ was not part of the Sinai covenant. He absolutely wasóand the entire Sinai covenant was about Him. In fact, Jesus was born of a woman under the law, and as our Substitute and the new head of the human race, Jesus lived out the Sinai covenant exactly as it was inteded to be lived: perfectly. He was not only involved in the Sinai covenant as part of the Trinity who promised blessings and cursings to Israel, He was also the perfect Isreal who actually KEPT the Sinai covenantónot only as a human but as the sacrifices. The Sinai covenant was imperfect not because it was Christless but because it was incomplete. It was merely shadowsóand Jesus realized every one of the shadows. He was the substance Who had cast the Mosaic shadows, and when He had fulfilled the entire law, He ushered in the New Covenant which promised new birth and new hearts and new existence to all who believe. BTW, the Study Notes of the NIV study Bible identify the smoking pot and the blazing torch as symbols of God. It does not suggest that each piece symbolizes a different "Person". God is Oneóand the Holy Spirit is as involved in God's promises as is the Father and as is the Son. How amazing! Colleen (Message edited by Colleentinker on February 08, 2007) | ||
| Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj Post Number: 121 Registered: 1-2006 |
Colleen, Good summary of the problem. I can't take this much further without more study on the symbols. I still see a problem having Christ directly represented at Sinai but refraining from serving as our Representative or Mediator in that covenant--notwithstanding faulty human promises. There are also gaps in my understanding on the involvement and presence of the Holy Spirit (before pentecost) as you mentioned. This is an area where several areas of understanding have to converge, always a challenge to concrete thinkers like me! Thank you, Jonah, Colleen, Jeremy and all who contributed to this part of Jonah's thread. Bob | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 688 Registered: 10-2002  |
Wow, Colleen, thanks for that. You know, one thing I remembered while reading is that I think the Trinity was not yet revealed until Christ came. Christ revealed the Father, as John said. No one had known Him until the Son revealed Him, and no one had known the Son until the Father had revealed Him (Matt.11:26-27). Looking back into the pre-Trinity-revelation times, we can see glimpses of the Father, Son and Spirit (notably the Spirit), yet those times are called "shadows" for good reason. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5397 Registered: 12-2003 |
Yes, Ramone, the Trinity was not fully revealed until Jesus came. It was, however, Jesus who was less revealed than the Holy Spirit. Clearly the Spirit of God is present throughout the OT. Bob, regarding Christ being or not being humanity's representative at the Sinai covenantóno, the direct words of the covenant did not include a revelation of Jesus as the mediator. But when we read Hebrews and look backward, we see clearly that He was there. Perhaps the most "Oh, my goodness!" text for me has been Hebrews 10:19-20: "Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart..." Did you ever see that before? In verse 20 the curtainóthat thick veil separating the Holy from the Most Holy Placeórepresented what Jesus was doing even before the cross. Jesus was protecting sinful humanity from being destroyed by God's wrath. Just as that veil kept Israel from seeing the shekinah glory and being killed, so Jesus Himself protected depraved humanity from being destroyed. When Jesus died, that curtain toreóand even the earthly representation of the place of God's hidden glory was exposed. Jesus' body opened the way to God. That curtain did not just foreshadow Jesus' body; it represented Jesus Himself even before the cross. The promise of the cross, the eternal sacrifice and salvation of Jesus, protected mankind from being destroyed by God's holiness even before He made His once-for-all sacrifice. My point is that even though people didn't know about Jesus the man and the Redeemer, still Jesus was centrally involved in the Mosaic covenant. It was an imperfect (and doomed) covenant, however, because it involved humanity's promise to achieve and maintain righteousness. Those promises of man had no power. They had to be replaced by God's promises aloneóHis promises to Himself within the Trinity (Jesus' obedience to the Father and God's declaration of Jesus' eternal priesthoodósee Hebrews 5 and 6:13-20) as well as His promises to us. I guess my point of disagreement is with the idea of its being "Christless". Jesus was involved as part of the Trinity; all of God covenanted with Israel, and we see how the symbols of the Mosaic covenant revealed that Jesus was actively at work even then. I do not disagree, however, that the Sinai covenant was weak because it was not based on Christ's promises and sacrifice. That is totally true. Israel failed because they could not keep the law. Period. The Sinai covenant was about revealing sin and revealing the nature of the Redeemer and of salvation. It was never possible for the law to yield new birth. Sam Pestes is right that the Sinai covenant was hopelessly flawed and doomed because it was not based on Jesus' fulfillement of the law and of the sacrifices. I just have trouble calling it "Christless" because I believe Christ was involved in making that covenant with Israel, and He was also involved as the One who protected all mankind from destruction by God's glory before He had atoned for sin and had reconciled all things in heaven and on earth to God. Colleen | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 197 Registered: 1-2004  |
I find it interesting that even in architecture you can see Hebrews 10:19-20. Look at the layout of the Jewish temple, and who could go where... the laypeople could not even go inside the first veil. Only the priests could go in the first apartment and only the high priest once a year could go in the second apartment. Looking at Christian temples we find that everyone can now go into the first apartment, but people need a blessing to serve at the Christian altar. You can see this very clearly in an Orthodox Christian temple, because there is an icon screen separating the two rooms. It even usually has a sliding curtain like the tent built by Moses in the wilderness. In the Roman Catholic churches they don't have the separation except I guess the altar rail in the old churches. The Latins really got serious about this business of coming boldly before the throne of grace. The Christian altar is seen as synonymous with the O.T. mercy seat and the throne of God. So there's architectural theology; we now get to come before the throne ourselves. It seems likely to me that the basic temple layout was familiar to the original recipients of the book of Revelation because there is so much temple imagery there. Jeremiah | ||
| Esther Registered user Username: Esther Post Number: 373 Registered: 5-2004 |
Wow, I was wondering when this book would actually be released. At one time I had the manuscript for it. I will have to go see if I can find it anywhere. For those of you who are wondering...the book is no more "scholarly" than 3ABN's book "Twice Removed". So many gaps in reasoning, conclusions based on ???, and the typical use of scripture by an SDA. Actually, if widely publicized this book may actually raise more awareness and questions in those who might be open to questioning, but haven't yet formulated real problems with the church. But then, it will quell the doubt of those who are looking for doubt to be quelled. And for those receive all the new releases from their families to help convince you of your error...you'll get this free (I am awaiting my copy) | ||
| Esther Registered user Username: Esther Post Number: 374 Registered: 5-2004 |
Here's a link to an excerpt of the book posted on the university press website: http://universitypress.andrews.edu/content/In%20Granite%20Excerpt.pdf | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 690 Registered: 10-2002 |
Wow, Colleen! Thanks for that insight about the veil in Hebrews! God is awesome! I agree with all you wrote... what you said about Christ being the main revelation (or mainly hidden One) was what I meant to say. The Gospel of John (as well as Matthew 11:26-7) seem to also suggest that we didn't know the Father before Christ came, either---we didn't know God is love! Everything Christ did was a revelation of the Father, so much so that at the end of His three-year ministry He summed it all up in John 17 by saying to Father, "I have revealed Your name to them." Before this thread I had never consciously realized that Christ's coming spelled the revelation of the Trinity. And still more wonderful is knowing that by changing places with us, the Trinity has brought us right into Their heart. The Father loves us as He loves His Son, the Spirit lives inside of us, and the Father & Son make Their "home" in us. And the Son has promised to continue revealing Father to us so that Father's love for Christ may be in us. (Jn.17:26) Awesome, awesome, awesome! (Message edited by agapetos on February 10, 2007) |
