Present doctrine of atonement fallacies

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

I don't want the purpose. That presupposes that God killed the animal. I want to know why you think God killed the animal.

Did you not read my post? It was for the purpose of SACRIFICE!!!

Are you not reading mine? You apparently misunderstood my question. I asked why you think God killed an animal, which you misunderstood as my wanting to know for what purpose God killed an animal, which presupposes that an animal was killed and that God killed it. I'm asking about these presuppositions, which I've already explained at least three times now. That is, why do you think an animal was killed, and why do you think it was killed by God? (as opposed to a garment being provided without an animal being killed, or as opposed to a dead animal being found)

Why are you asking if I read your post? You keep answering a question I'm not asking.

[pnattmbtc]

Sorry. Apples & oranges. You are comparing one sinner insulting/sinning or incurring against another sinner to a Holy Creator insulted by His creature! We are able to forgive one another without requiring payment because any debt incurred has been paid at the Cross.

This idea originated with Anselm. One way to see this is the case is to consider the Eastern Orthodox church. Because they split off from the Roman Catholic church before Anselm, this idea didn't make to them. So they do not have this idea of the atonement.

It's not in the writings of the early church fathers. It's not an idea that existed at the time of Paul. No culture held this idea. This was not the idea that sacrifice, which was common throughout the world, had for any culture.

[wayfinder]

In the account of Cain and Able, it was a question of obedience, note the following verses.

Genesis 4:3-7(Septuagint)

4:3 And it was so after some time that Cain brought of the fruits of the earth a sacrifice to the Lord.

4:4 And Abel also brought of the first born of his sheep and of his fatlings, and God looked upon Abel and his gifts,

4:5 but Cain and his sacrifices he regarded not, and Cain was exceedingly sorrowful and his countenance fell.

4:6 And the Lord God said to Cain, Why art thou become very sorrowful and why is thy countenance fallen?

4:7 Hast thou not sinned if thou hast brought it rightly, but not rightly divided it? be still, to thee shall be his submission, and thou shalt rule over him.

Notice the difference between the two sacrifices. Cain brought the fruits of the earth (not the firstfruits and the best), Able brought the firstlings. God has always required the firstfruits the best of the flock, herd, and harvest. The bottomline has, is, and always will be, obedience to God. Adam and Eve disobeyed by eating the forbidden fruit. Cain disobeyed by not bringing the firstfruits, notice that God said to Cain, "have you not sinned if you rightly brought it, but not rightly divided it".

This has nothing to do with a sacrifice for sin, but it has to do with what sin is and how to master it. We must obey God.

[pnattmbtc]

I don't think the issue was that God required something, and it wasn't good enough for Him, because it wasn't the best, so God rejected it. That sounds rather selfish.

I think the problem is that Cain did not have faith in God, meaning he didn't love God, or care for Him, or His principles. It was because of this that Cain did not offer the firstfruits or the best, and Cain's offering was rejected because Cain himself was not right with God, and didn't want to be right with God.

God will accept anyone who comes to Him willingly, but He won't force the will. Anything done for some token reason, to satisfy some rite as it were, won't work. God is not deceived. He looks at the heart. Cain's heart wasn't right, and this is what God was wanting to address. We can see this with God's dealing with Cain, warning Him that sin was crouching at the door. God was trying to save Cain, because He loved him. Cain's offering was symptomatic of a deeper problem.

[wayfinder]

Are you saying then, that the text mistates the true meaning?

[pnattmbtc]

No, I was responding to your comment.

[John317]

The lives of the partriarchs in heaven, Enoch, Elijah, and Moses, were based on the promise of what Christ would do in the future. What they had in heaven prior to Christ's first coming was conditioned on Christ's fulfilling what He had covenanted with the Father to do, which was to give His life a ransom for [anti] many. Matt. 20: 28. Who were "the many"? All the saved. Enoch, Elijah, and Moses are among the saved, and as such they are included among "the many" for whom Christ gave His life as a ransom.

Were those patriarchs sinners? Certainly. Were they children of the first Adam? Yes, of course. Then, like all children of Adam, upon what basis were they saved? Answer: Not on the basis of their works, but on the basis of God's grace received through faith in the Messiah.

But what if Christ had chosen to reject "the cup"? Or what if He had sinned? The only possible answer is that Enoch, Moses, and Elijah would then have died.

We need to understand that all sinners deserve eternal death and would reap the eternal consequences of sin if it weren't for Christ. That includes Enoch, Elijah and Moses. They didn't earn salvation any more than we do, but their salvation was on the basis of God's grace received through faith in the future coming of the Messiah.

All mankind would have perished without Christ's coming to earth, living a perfect life, dying, and being resurrected.

[wayfinder]

My comment was, that the key issue in this case and in the case of Cain's parents and the forbidden tree, was obedience. It is true that the heart is the center of what we believe and practice and for this reason our actions are a result of what we hold in our heart.

Psalms 119:11 NAS

Your word I have treasured in my heart, That I may not sin against You.

When God's word is in our hearts we know His will and we obey His will. Cain knew what God wanted, he willfully disobeyed.

Deuteronomy 28:2 NAS

"All these blessings will come upon you and overtake you if you obey the LORD your God

Deuteronomy 28:45 NAS

"So all these curses shall come on you and pursue you and overtake you until you are destroyed, because you would not obey the LORD your God by keeping His commandments and His statutes which He commanded you.

John 3:36 NAS

"He who believes in the Son has eternal life ; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

The key to eternal life is obedience to God's commands, this is what is was in the garden of paradise and it is what it is at the time of the end and forever.

[John317]

Quote:

fccool:

This would be what I call an oversimplification of this concept. I don't believe God works in a way that you do, or in a way that I do.

I purposely made it simple in order to make the points crystal clear and easy to see at a glance.

But I don't think God works the way that I do, either. In fact, I know he doesn't, and I'm glad of that. I'm just letting the Bible speak, which is the only way we can know anything for sure about God. We can't find out God by merely thinking about Him or theorizing. When we do that, we can get no higher than the top of our skulls.

Check out these verses again:

Luke 24:26

In Jesus' own words: "Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter into his glory?"

Acts 17:3

NIKJ-- Paul was "explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead..."

ESV--- "explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead..."

The English words "had to" is a translation of the Greek imperfect active indicative verb dei (Strong's #1163), which means "it is binding, it is necessary, it is proper; it is inevitable."

When we put those verses with Acts 2:23, it is very clear that the Godhead made the plan of salvation that necessitated Christ's suffering and death.

Acts 2:23: Peter said, "this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men."

It was the "pre-determined plan" or "fixed design" of God.

Quote:

fccool: For God, all of the variables are calculated... and the best one is chosen for a certain situation.

If we speak in the terms that you are laying it out, then God was absolutely constrained to creating humanity the way that they were, and God was absolutely constrained to creating fallen angels.

But God didn't make fallen angels. He didn't make Satan, or the Devil. God made a beautiful, extremely intelligent angel, who went on to make himself into the Devil.

There's no doubt, though, that God knew Lucifer would rebel, yet He still chose to create him.

I don't believe God is "constrained" or forced to do anything. He's completely free to choose as He does. The only contraints on God are those contraints that result from His character, such as love, righteousness, wisdom, justice, mercy, etc.

He could have allowed this world to reap the consequences of rebellion, and if God had done this, He would have been perfectly just and right.

But no, I don't believe God had to make people the way He did. He did it because He freely chose to make humans as He did.

Quote:

fccool: Jesus did ask for another way, but chose to go through with the Cross as planned, so in that sense, you are absolutely correct. In the plan, there was no room for diviation.

I agree. The question is, why did that plan from the very beginning mean that Christ "had to" die? As Jesus said, it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and die. But why?

I suggest the reason has to do with God's righteous, loving character, His government and His laws.

[John317]

Quote:

wayfinder: My comment was, that the key issue in this case and in the case of Cain's parents and the forbidden tree, was obedience. It is true that the heart is the center of what we believe and practice and for this reason our actions are a result of what we hold in our heart.

....The key to eternal life is obedience to God's commands, this is what is was in the garden of paradise and it is what it is at the time of the end and forever.

The key to eternal life is obedience that results from trust/faith in God. I think you'll agree that the quality of the obedience is important to God. People can do good things while hating it. For instance, a person can give tithe while wishing he didn't "have to." Such giving, or obedience, isn't acceptable to God.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: I don't think the issue was that God required something, and it wasn't good enough for Him, because it wasn't the best, so God rejected it. That sounds rather selfish.

I think the problem is that Cain did not have faith in God, meaning he didn't love God, or care for Him, or His principles. It was because of this that Cain did not offer the firstfruits or the best, and Cain's offering was rejected because Cain himself was not right with God, and didn't want to be right with God.

.... Cain's offering was symptomatic of a deeper problem.

Yes, I agree with this. It means that if we truly have love for God and genuine faith/trust, we will obey Him.

But will we obey Him only when we agree with Him? (Is such obedience REALLY obedience?) Or will we obey Him even when we don't understand the reasons for His commands?

In other words, do we trust and love Him enough to obey Him in everything?

[Gerr]

Quote:

I don't want the purpose. That presupposes that God killed the animal. I want to know why you think God killed the animal.

Did you not read my post? It was for the purpose of SACRIFICE!!!

Are you not reading mine? You apparently misunderstood my question.

Obviously!!!

Quote:

I asked why you think God killed an animal, which you misunderstood as my wanting to know for what purpose God killed an animal, which presupposes that an animal was killed and that God killed it. I'm asking about these presuppositions, which I've already explained at least three times now. That is, why do you think an animal was killed, and why do you think it was killed by God? (as opposed to a garment being provided without an animal being killed, or as opposed to a dead animal being found)

A "why" question to me, as I have explained by a dictionary definition, asks for what purpose, the reason for something. And I have already answered - for the purpose of sacrifice!!! If our merciful God had been concerned only about clothing in the physical sense, He could have given something made out of wool or cotton or bark instead of sacrificing the life of an animal. The sacrifice of the animal's life was a preview of what was to come in the death of Christ, and the skin as symbolic of a garment they must have if they were to live forever.

Quote:

Why are you asking if I read your post? You keep answering a question I'm not asking.

Because I have already answered your "why" question more than once!

[Gerr]

Quote:

This makes clear that the issue was faith. It doesn't saying anything about the offering itself.

Of course, it does!!! The offering was the expression/evidence of the kind of faith he had!!!

Quote:

Quote:

G:Why the objection that God killed the animal Himself for sacrifice?

What sacrifice? I thought we were talking about the garment.

Something has gone awry with our communication somehow. We have not been talking just about the garment of animal skins, you had raised the question as to why God would have killed an animal to dress them. I gave a two-fold reason, 1) the animal was killed for sacrifice - a preview of the ultimate sacrifice Christ was to make, 2) the skin garments being symbolic of the garment Christ was to provide at the cost of His own life.

[wayfinder]

John317, I agree with the idea that strict obedience, for the sake of obedience is not what God requires, but obedience that comes from love for God and trusting in His word.

Matthew 5:20 NAS

"For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

To have righteousness that surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, is a righteousness that has it's origin in the heart of our understanding. The scribes and Pharisees kept the Law as they saw it, yet in this Law it stated "Thou shalt not murder".

John 7:19 NAS

"Did not Moses give you the Law, and yet none of you carries out the Law ? Why do you seek to kill Me?"

The scribes and Pharisees saw themselves as righteous and anyone who disagreed with them as sinners. They condemned the Son of God because, they had determined amongst themselves, Jesus must be working with Satan to try and decieve them, but that could not happen, because they knew how to recognize the deceptions of Satan, or so they believed. The scribes and Pharisees condemned the Son of God on the charge of blasphemy. It is appearent that they justified the killing of Jesus according to their understanding of Law. It mattered little what the Law actually said, but what they had determined it said, this sounds very similar to today.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

That presupposes that God killed the animal. I want to know why you think God killed the animal.

Did you not read my post? It was for the purpose of SACRIFICE!!!

[teresaq]

John317, I agree with the idea that strict obedience, for the sake of obedience is not what God requires, but obedience that comes from love for God and trusting in His word.

i think we should obey God because Hes right and satans wrong...that isnt to discount the love and trust issue, but God is either right--or Hes wrong...

[John317]

Quote:

wayfinder: John317, I agree with the idea that strict obedience, for the sake of obedience is not what God requires, but obedience that comes from love for God and trusting in His word.

Quote:

teresaq(sda): i think we should obey God because Hes right and satans wrong...that isnt to discount the love and trust issue, but God is either right--or Hes wrong...

Yes, true, but there can be times when it appears that maybe God is not right. Do we trust Him enough to believe God is right even when it appears that He's not?

For instance, Ellen White wrote that masturbation is sinful and harmful. Many people today dispute those statements and say that Ellen White was wrong.

Do we trust God and His prophet enough to obey His revelations about health, including masturbation, even when we don't have scientific proof? Or do we have more faith in "science" than in the Bible and in the Spirit of propehcy?

[Nic Samojluk]

It was God's original plan. Jesus had to die. No doubt about it.

[pnattmbtc]

wayfinder, you wrote:

Quote:

God has always required the firstfruits the best of the flock, herd, and harvest. The bottomline has, is, and always will be, obedience to God.

My response in regards to this comment. The way you worded this could be taken as God's demanding something, and that Cain's problem was he didn't do what God required. I'm not saying this was your intent, so didn't claim that it was, but what you wrote could be taken this way, which is what I was responding to.

Cain's problem was a lack of faith, and God was trying to help him, to save him.

[Nic Samojluk]

God did not send Jesus to die when God had an alternative that would have made it possible for Jesus not to die.

God did have an alternative scenario both for Israel and for Jerusalem. His desire was for Jerusalem to remain for evermore. This was attested by even Ellen White. We find many predictions in the OT describing a glorious future for the city of Jerusalem which failed to materialize because the Jewish leaders made the wrong choice.

After the fact explanation are not very reliable. This is like saying that God’s plan was for Adam and Eve to make the wrong choice in order that the plan of salvation might be implemented.

The Lord never intended for Lucifer to make the wrong choice; he never intended for Adam and Eve to make the wrong choice; he never intended for Joseph’s brothers to make the wrong choice and sell his as a slave; likewise, God never intended for the Jewish leaders to make the wrong choice. But the Lord was ready and is always ready to transform a wrong choice into a chance to reveal his love.

[John317]

Quote:

John: It was God's original plan. Jesus had to die. No doubt about it.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Not so.

What does both the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy say?

See Isaiah 53: 1-9, 12. "He was wounded for our transgressions... The Lord has laid on Him the inquity of us all... He was led as a lamb to the slaughter...He was cut off from the land of the living... They made his grave with the wicked but with the rich at his death." There are no conditions here given for Christ's death. Also compare Acts 8: 32, 33 where it makes it very clear that the passage means Christ had to die.

If the world-- you and I or anyone else--- would be saved, Christ must die.

The entire sacrificial system pointed forward prophetically to the suffering and death of Christ. As John 1: 29 says, Jesus was the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. This theme is found all through the Bible, including the book of Revelation, chapter 5.

Gen. 3:15 is a prophecy showing that the Messiah would come and die for mankind.

Luke 24:26

In Jesus' own words: "Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?"

Acts 17:3

NIKJ-- Paul was "explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead..."

ESV--- "explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead..."

Acts 2:23:

this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

It was the "pre-determined plan" or "fixed design" of God.

Rev. 13:8

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

It says as clearly as can be that Christ's death on the cross was "the definite plan" of God.

Ellen White:

The broken law of God demanded the life of the sinner. In all the universe there was but one who could, in behalf of man, satisfy its claims. Since the divine law is as sacred as God Himself, only one equal with God could make atonement for its transgression. None but Christ could redeem fallen man from the curse of the law and bring him again into harmony with Heaven. Christ would take upon Himself the guilt and shame of sin--sin so offensive to a holy God that it must separate the Father and His Son. Christ would reach to the depths of misery to rescue the ruined race.

Before the Father He pleaded in the sinner's behalf, while the host of heaven awaited the result with an intensity of interest that words cannot express. Long continued was that mysterious communing--"the counsel of peace" (Zechariah 6:13) for the fallen sons of men. The plan of salvation had been laid before the creation of the earth; for Christ is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8); yet it was a struggle, even with the King of the universe, to yield up His Son to die for the guilty race. But "God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. Oh, the mystery of

redemption! the love of God for a world that did not love Him! Who can know the depths of that love which "passeth knowledge"? Through endless ages immortal minds, seeking to comprehend the mystery of that incomprehensible love, will wonder and adore.

God was to be manifest in Christ, "reconciling the world unto Himself." 2 Corinthians 5:19. Man had become so degraded by sin that it was impossible for him, in himself, to come into harmony with Him whose nature is purity and goodness. But Christ, after having redeemed man from the condemnation of the law, could impart divine power to unite with human effort. Thus by repentance toward God and faith in Christ the fallen children of Adam might once more become "sons of God." 1 John 3:2.

The plan by which alone man's salvation could be secured, involved all heaven in its infinite sacrifice. The angels could not rejoice as Christ opened before them the plan of redemption, for they saw that man's salvation must cost their loved Commander unutterable woe. In grief and wonder they listened to His words as He told them how He must descend from heaven's purity and peace, its joy and glory and immortal life, and come in contact with the degradation of earth, to endure its sorrow, shame, and death. He was to stand between the sinner and the penalty of sin; yet few would receive Him as the Son of God. He would leave His high position as the Majesty of heaven, appear upon earth and humble Himself as a man, and by His own experience become acquainted with the sorrows and temptations which man would have to endure. All this would be necessary in order that He might be able to succor them that should be tempted. Hebrews 2:18. When His mission as a teacher should be ended, He must be delivered into the hands of wicked men and be subjected to every insult and torture that Satan could inspire them to inflict. He must die the cruelest of deaths, lifted up between the heavens and the earth as a guilty sinner. He must pass long hours of agony so terrible that angels could not look upon it, but would veil their faces from the sight. He must endure anguish of soul, the hiding of His Father's face, while the guilt of transgression --the weight of the sins of the whole world--should be upon Him. PP 63, 64

[Gerr]

Quote:

i have a different view than pnattmbtc, gerry, but i also wonder why you believe it was God who killed the animal...especially given the specific directions given later in the ceremonial system.

That's an assumption on my part based on reading between the lines. Apparently, I'm not the only one.

21. God made coats of skins—taught them to make these for themselves. This implies the institution of animal sacrifice, which was undoubtedly of divine appointment, and instruction in the only acceptable mode of worship for sinful creatures, through faith in a Redeemer (Heb 9:22).

Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. On spine: Critical and explanatory commentary. (Ge 3:21). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Then tunics of skin were provided by God through the death of an animal. This pictures the robe of righteousness which is provided for guilty sinners through the shed blood of the Lamb of God, made available to us on the basis of faith.

MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible Commentary : Old and New Testaments (Ge 3:20). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

An animal was sacrificed to provide garments of skin, and later all Israel’s animal sacrifices would be part of God’s provision to remedy the curse—a life for a life

Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-c1985). The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures (1:33). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

That they might know the difference between God’s works and man’s invention—between coats of leather and aprons of leaves; and, 6. To put them in mind of their mortality by their raiment of dead beasts’ skins—talibus indici oportebat peccatorem ut essent mortalitatis indicium: Origen” (Willet). 7. “That they might feel their degradation—quia vestes ex ea materia confectæ, belluinum quiddam magis saperent, quam lineæ vel laneæ—and be reminded of their sin” (Calvin). “As the prisoner, looking on his irons, thinketh on his theft, so we, looking on our garments, should think on our sins” (Trapp). 8. A foreshadowing of the robe of Christ’s righteousness (Delitzsch, Macdonald, Murphy, Wordsworth, Candlish; cf. Ps. 132:9, 16; Isa. 61:10; Rom. 13:14; Ephes. 4:24; Col. 3:10). Bonar recognises in Jehovah Elohim at the gate of Eden, clothing the first transgressors, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, as the High Priest of our salvation, had a right to the skins of the burnt offerings (Levit. 7:8), and who, to prefigure his own work, appropriated them for covering the pardoned pair.

The Pulpit Commentary: Genesis. 2004 (H. D. M. Spence-Jones, Ed.) (73). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Although the text does not specify that animals were slain to provide these coverings, it is a fair implication and one that likely would be made in the Mosaic community, where animal sacrifice was pervasive. Since the garden narrative shares in tabernacle imagery, it is not surprising that allusion to animal sacrifice is found in the garden too. Through an oblique reference to animal sacrifice, the garden narrative paints a theological portrait familiar to the recipients of the Sinai revelation who honored the tabernacle as the meeting place with God. Sacrifice renewed and guaranteed that special union of God with his people (e.g., Day of Atonement, Lev 16). This mode of provision then for Adam and Eve affirmed God’s abiding goodwill.

Mathews, K. A. (2001, c1995). Vol. 1A: Genesis 1-11:26 (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (255). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

These coats of skin had a significancy. The beasts whose skins they were must be slain, slain before their eyes, to show them what death is, and (as it is Eccl. 3:18) that they may see that they themselves were beasts, mortal and dying. It is supposed that they were slain, not for food, but for sacrifice, to typify the great sacrifice, which, in the latter end of the world, should be offered once for all. Thus the first thing that died was a sacrifice, or Christ in a figure, who is therefore said to be the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. These sacrifices were divided between God and man, in token of reconciliation: the flesh was offered to God, a whole burnt-offering; the skins were given to man for clothing, signifying that, Jesus Christ having offered himself to God a sacrifice of a sweet-smelling savour, we are to clothe ourselves with his righteousness as with a garment, that the shame of our nakedness may not appear. Adam and Eve made for themselves aprons of fig-leaves, a covering too narrow for them to wrap themselves in, Isa. 28:20. Such are all the rags of our own righteousness. But God made them coats of skins; large, and strong, and durable, and fit for them; such is the righteousness of Christ. Therefore put on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Henry, M. (1996, c1991). Matthew Henry's commentary on the whole Bible : Complete and unabridged in one volume (Ge 3:21). Peabody: Hendrickson.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John

God did not send Jesus to die when God had an alternative that would have made it possible for Jesus not to die.

God did have an alternative scenario both for Israel and for Jerusalem. His desire was for Jerusalem to remain for evermore. This was attested by even Ellen White.

Based on what you say below, why should you and I care what Ellen White said?

Quote:

Yes, Ellen White is clear, but she is also clear on other topics which I cannot accept. She is very clear that Jesus waited until 1844 before he was allowed to present his blood in the presence of God the Father, while the Bible states also very clearly that Jesus went directly to the throne of God and sat on the right hand of God. Whenever I have to choose between Ellen White and the Bible, I must choose the Bible over Mrs. White.

Given the fact that Ellen White borrowed so much from other sacred authors, I have no way of determining which of her statements are the result of her visions and which ones from her profuse borrowing. This is why I have determined to stick to the Bible whenever we are dealing with fundamental doctrinal truths.

If you believe this, why do you quote her as an authority?

And do you know who the Gospel writers borrowed material from? Do you know who Jude borrowed from?

The fact that Ellen White borrowed from other writers is no evidence that what she said is untrue.

But if it means you have no confidence in her, then why do you quote her?

It's well known that Ellen White borrowed from other writers. That is not new. It doesn't matter. Using other's writings is no evidence that her writings are not true.

Many great writers, such as Shakespeare, used other people's writings, and they never gave their sources credit. There's a good article about this written by an attorney who specializes in this aspect of the law.

This question has been dealt with many times and is usually brought up when someone doesn't like what Ellen White says. When they like what she says, they they quote her and talk as if she is trustworthy. When she says something they don't like, then suddenly she can't be trusted for all kinds of reasons.

Quote:

Do you know who she borrowed from the material we find in PP?

I'd like to know the name of the book, the author, and the page number for what she wrote in PP 63-65.

[pnattmbtc]

J;Yes, I agree with this. It means that if we truly have love for God and genuine faith/trust, we will obey Him.

But will we obey Him only when we agree with Him? (Is such obedience REALLY obedience?)

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: I think it's a slippery slope to go down if we think God wants us to do things that we don't understand why we're doing them.

Did Eve understand why God told her not to eat of a particular tree?

God didn't tell Eve that she had to understand all of the reasons for the command before she should obey it.

Should people who don't understand why God commands them to keep the Sabbath on the seventh-day of the week do it anyway?

People easily see the reason for the command to rest and not work, but most people don't think it matters which day they rest.

But to God it does matter, and He commands that people rest on the seventh-day and not on the first. The first won't do. Why not?

This is an essential part of the Third Angels Message. Why does the day of the week very much matter, so much so that God inspired John to write Rev. 14: 9-12, one of the most frightful warnings given in the entire Bible?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

I don't want the purpose. That presupposes that God killed the animal. I want to know why you think God killed the animal.

Did you not read my post? It was for the purpose of SACRIFICE!!!

Are you not reading mine? You apparently misunderstood my question.

Obviously!!!

Quote:

I asked why you think God killed an animal, which you misunderstood as my wanting to know for what purpose God killed an animal, which presupposes that an animal was killed and that God killed it. I'm asking about these presuppositions, which I've already explained at least three times now. That is, why do you think an animal was killed, and why do you think it was killed by God? (as opposed to a garment being provided without an animal being killed, or as opposed to a dead animal being found)

A "why" question to me, as I have explained by a dictionary definition, asks for what purpose, the reason for something. And I have already answered - for the purpose of sacrifice!!!

This isn't what I was asked, as I've explained.

Quote:

If our merciful God had been concerned only about clothing in the physical sense, He could have given something made out of wool or cotton or bark instead of sacrificing the life of an animal.

There's nothing in the text that says an animal was sacrificed. Why do you think this was the case?

Quote:

The sacrifice of the animal's life was a preview of what was to come in the death of Christ, and the skin as symbolic of a garment they must have if they were to live forever.

But the text says nothing like this. It says that God provided a garment for them. The Hebrew word, as I recall, does not necessitate the death of an animal. Yet you, for some reason, seem convinced that God killed an animal.

Quote:

Why are you asking if I read your post? You keep answering a question I'm not asking.

Because I have already answered your "why" question more than once!

This doesn't appear to me like you're addressing the question I'm asking.