The Paradox of Adventism

[skyblue888]

Overaged, yes the sacrifice was complete, the condition for the atonement had been fulfilled but the atonement did not begin until Jesus ascended up on High. If the atonement was completed at the cross there would be no need for Jesus to ascend and to make atonement.

"The intercession of Christ in our behalf is that of presenting His divine merits in the offering of Himself to the Father as our substitute and surety; for He ascended up on High to make an atonement for our transgression." F.W.105.

If the atonement had been completed on the cross Mrs. White would not have written that He ascended up on High to make an atonement!

When Jesus on the cross, said, "It is finished" He was not talking about the atonement itself but about the condition for the atonement for He did not begin the atonement until He had received the approval of the Father.

sky

* I don't see what Luke 3:22 has to do with the approval of the Father as far as Christ's sacrifice on the cross is concerned.

[Tom Wetmore]

[BobRyan]

Overaged, yes the sacrifice was complete, the condition for the atonement had been fulfilled but the atonement did not begin until Jesus ascended up on High. If the atonement was completed at the cross there would be no need for Jesus to ascend and to make atonement.

In 1John 2:2 we are told that on the cross Christ was the "Atoning Sacrifice for our sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the whole world". That Atoning Sacrifice was completed at the cross.

But in Lev 16 the full doctrine on atonement does not end with the killing of the Lord's goat. The completion of the Atoning sacrifice did not end God's instruction about the Day of Atonement in Lev 16.

Atonement in the full Lev 16 context is not complete until the work of the High Priest ends.

Paul is clear that Christ began His work as our High Priest at the resurrection.

in Christ,

Bob

[phkrause]

In 1John 2:2 we are told that on the cross Christ was the "Atoning Sacrifice for our sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the whole world". That Atoning Sacrifice was completed at the cross.

But in Lev 16 the full doctrine on atonement does not end with the killing of the Lord's goat. The completion of the Atoning sacrifice did not end God's instruction about the Day of Atonement in Lev 16.

Atonement in the full Lev 16 context is not complete until the work of the High Priest ends.

Paul is clear that Christ began His work as our High Priest at the resurrection.

right on Bob

in Christ,

Bob

[Overaged]

Overaged, yes the sacrifice was complete, the condition for the atonement had been fulfilled but the atonement did not begin until Jesus ascended up on High. If the atonement was completed at the cross there would be no need for Jesus to ascend and to make atonement.

"The intercession of Christ in our behalf is that of presenting His divine merits in the offering of Himself to the Father as our substitute and surety; for He ascended up on High to make an atonement for our transgression." F.W.105.

If the atonement had been completed on the cross Mrs. White would not have written that He ascended up on High to make an atonement!

When Jesus on the cross, said, "It is finished" He was not talking about the atonement itself but about the condition for the atonement for He did not begin the atonement until He had received the approval of the Father.

sky

* I don't see what Luke 3:22 has to do with the approval of the Father as far as Christ's sacrifice on the cross is concerned.

Luke 3:22 tells us that The Father's Voice was heard saying: "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well-pleased." This "well-pleased" was not intended for some past thing; nor was it intended for some future thing. It is clearly present tense, meaning the Father was "well-pleased" for the very reason Jesus was Incarnate. I would suggest that this means, every step of the way to and from calvary, our Father in heaven would have said the same thing. It's funny how "church people" don't often follow suit on that count. But it's an important point in recognizing the truth about the atonement.

I think that too many, too often, miss out on that Word "FINISHED" in John 19. It was spoken by Christ Himself. We shouldn't try to alter the meaning of this Word with Ellen White, or anyone else.

[Overaged]

I understand what is being said and I agree with it to some degree. We can only search for truth so long as it doesn't contradict existing "truth". In other words, there is no real continuing search for truth, yet nearly every church leader today would deny such an accusation, as naturally they would. This is why I have asked, on other threads, questions that make a lot of people uncomfortable.... trying to push the envelope.

If what you say is true; then there would be no such thing as truth; because we would never be able to call anything "true" for fear of having to change it someday. There are some things that are true; and truth does not "change;" but sometimes more is added to it. For eg., the truth that Christ loves us, is a truth that would never change. Upon further investigation; it might be discovered that Christ died on the cross for us, and so rather than negating the fact that Jesus loves us, this new point that was discovered would ADD to the original truth, but not change it. So yes, there is indeed a continual search for truth that is very real for the Christian.

And BTW; you hav not made me uncomfortable yet....

[Overaged]

In 1John 2:2 we are told that on the cross Christ was the "Atoning Sacrifice for our sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the whole world". That Atoning Sacrifice was completed at the cross.

But in Lev 16 the full doctrine on atonement does not end with the killing of the Lord's goat. The completion of the Atoning sacrifice did not end God's instruction about the Day of Atonement in Lev 16.

Atonement in the full Lev 16 context is not complete until the work of the High Priest ends.

Paul is clear that Christ began His work as our High Priest at the resurrection.

in Christ,

Bob

So are you saying that there is a different Way of salvation, in the OT as opposed to the NT?

[BobRyan]

So are you saying that there is a different Way of salvation, in the OT as opposed to the NT?

No. How did I create that impression in my post?

in Christ,

Bob

[fccool]

The word for atonement is "reconciliation". Please explain to me why would someone ABSOLUTELY HAS to die in order for us to be reconciled with God?

Let's say that that my child rejects me as a father. He curses and humiliates me in public in front of his peers. He tramples on our family values. He eventually comes to his senses, comes back to me to reconcile with me.

Based on "We should forgive each other like God forgave us" should I:

a) Punish my other son prior to offering forgiveness to the one who is asking for it, with stipulation that forgiven son recognizes the sacrifice of the older

Ask him for some valuable sacrifice... like killing his favorite pet, or dumping his girlfriend, before I can forgive him. The more valuable that "thing" to him... the better the lesson will be.

c) Understand that the act of asking forgiveness is the "lesson learned", and that no amount of extra blood/sacrifice/punishment would undo the past... and forgive him based on mere act that he's asking for forgiveness, which would imply that "we are ok" now relationship wise.

[BobRyan]

Suppose you tell your children that they are not allowed to play basket ball in the middle of the busy highway that runs right in front of your house -- and that if you ever catch them doing it you will fine them, ground them, punish them.

Suppose one of the 3 kids decides to test you on it and the next day there they are playing in the middle of the highway - dodging a car here and there and then running back into your yard.

Question - do you simply ignore your "law" because after all - sometimes you can play in the highway and not get killed, so lets just all be friends and not make such a big deal about it??

Is that really what "Love" does when you do not want the kids to get killed?

in Christ,

Bob

[Overaged]

quote=Overaged]

So are you saying that there is a different Way of salvation, in the OT as opposed to the NT? /quote]

No. How did I create that impression in my post?

in Christ,

Bob

I don't know, lol What do I know? Its just the thought that hit me when you compared NT atonement with OT atonement, and it kind of sounded like two different things the way you said it.

[Overaged]

The word for atonement is "reconciliation". Please explain to me why would someone ABSOLUTELY HAS to die in order for us to be reconciled with God?

Let's say that that my child rejects me as a father. He curses and humiliates me in public in front of his peers. He tramples on our family values. He eventually comes to his senses, comes back to me to reconcile with me.

Based on "We should forgive each other like God forgave us" should I:

a) Punish my other son prior to offering forgiveness to the one who is asking for it, with stipulation that forgiven son recognizes the sacrifice of the older

Ask him for some valuable sacrifice... like killing his favorite pet, or dumping his girlfriend, before I can forgive him. The more valuable that "thing" to him... the better the lesson will be.

c) Understand that the act of asking forgiveness is the "lesson learned", and that no amount of extra blood/sacrifice/punishment would undo the past... and forgive him based on mere act that he's asking for forgiveness, which would imply that "we are ok" now relationship wise.

Item a) would not be a "sacrifice" if you were the one who punished him and he did not "offer" to be punished in his brother's place

[fccool]

You are missing my point...

What difference does it make if I'm the one who requires some sort of punishment to be served... in my case it would seem that I don't really care if one or the other is punished, as long as someone is punished? That sort of makes the idea of punishment inseparable from the idea of forgiveness, which does not answer my question...

If we are forgive like God forgives, and given your "modification" of the other son volunteering to be punished before I can forgive... you think a) is the most proper way to go?

[fccool]

Suppose you tell your children that they are not allowed to play basket ball in the middle of the busy highway that runs right in front of your house -- and that if you ever catch them doing it you will fine them, ground them, punish them.

Suppose one of the 3 kids decides to test you on it and the next day there they are playing in the middle of the highway - dodging a car here and there and then running back into your yard.

Question - do you simply ignore your "law" because after all - sometimes you can play in the highway and not get killed, so lets just all be friends and not make such a big deal about it??

Is that really what "Love" does when you do not want the kids to get killed?

in Christ,

Bob

Bob,

We are talking about forgiveness and reconciliation. If my kids would decide to test me, then perhaps a due punishment may be appropriate. Yet, such punishment would not come in having one of my kids voluntarily jump in front of a car so that I can forgive the rest. Can't you see that's where you analogy sort of breaks down?

Likewise, the punishment is NOT about satisfaction of my anger and justice. It's about them learning their lesson and not doing it again for their sake.

Let's say that one of them does decide to test me, and jumps in front of a car while playing ball, gets hit and is paralyzed for the rest of the life. Isn't that punishment for disobedience in itself? What more can I do to teach consequences of ignoring my advice? If the kid recognizes that he screwed up, and says "You know dad, you were right about that road. I'm really sorry!". Do I have to say, "Well son, Sorry is not enough! Someone else has to pay the price of your disobedience! I will forgive you if one of your brothers will volunteer to be grounded for a week.... but until that happens, I will need you to kill sparky, bleed him in a cup and then sprinkle the blood over my armchair as a symbol of my forgiveness". That would be ridiculous.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

[BobRyan]

You need to keep all your kids from playing in the street - because they will all die ultimately if they play in the highway.

So having a harsh punishment for even ONE of them doing it - ensures that they will not suppose to themselves "yes but if I am quick and smart about it - I can play in the highway and nothing bad will happen" because you have assured them that even if they survive that strole into the rush of cars - you will punish them severely as a warning to the rest.

In the gospel model - Lucifer and his crew all run out into the street (and are instantly possessed by a sinful nature) - and God expells them. They are doomed to the lake of fire and so the severe penalty is hanging over them as a warning to all others.

Then Adam and Eve try that same stunt because Lucifer and his angels did not get visited with instant Lake-of-Fire so maybe God is a marshmellow kind of leader. They too are instantly possessed by a sinful nature, decreased will-power to do right and the problem that each generatioin of their children will become increasingly more depraved and inncapable of choosing right.

This time God offers a different "dissincentive" He says that HE will take the second death INSTEAD of Adam and Eve IF they will repent and accept forgiveness and the New Creation new-nature that will then be "at war" with their sinful nature.

The result of that solution is that the "Severe penalty" God sets up for running into the highway is maintained which means that His rule is still a valid rule with teeth in it. His lawis meant to deter His other children from simply running in the street and hoping for the best. So also is this sin experiment on planet Earth.

in Christ,

Bob

[Dr. Rich]

fccool, The answer to your question is very simple. God told Adam to obey and IF he didn't obey that God would kill him ON THAT DAY. Well, God did not kill Adam on that day because Jesus/Michael gave Himself up to PAY that penalty of dying the second death.

Adam's natural death was not the penalty, it was the consequence of being thrown out of the garden where the tree of life was. Therefore, Adam did die the first death because Adam was created in flesh and blood thereby making him mortal.

Jesus' death paid that penalty for Adam and Eve--and for the penalty of sin from all those who obey the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus (Rev. 12:17). It did NOT remove any sin at all. His death was NOT the Atonement as Paul and the unk writer of Hebrews wants you to believe.

Adventists (the early ones) were on track to all of this but got derailed by EGW, Jones and Waggoner. (Rev. 2:18-26)

[fccool]

Dr. Rich.

You paint God in rather macabre colors. I don't think you realize what you are writing:

1) You are saying that God told Adam to obey or God will kill him?

2) If death is not the natural consequence for disobeying God, then what's the point of the restrictions? It's like me asking my son not to swim in the lake... not because there are gators there, but because I made a point that swimming is evil, although apparently there are no harmful natural consequences.

I appreciate you trying, but your answer simply does not address the question I'm asking.

[Dr. Rich]

Fccool, you really have no clue, do you? Before Adam could become a witness to testify to the rest of mankind living outside of the garden who decended from mankind, both male and female created in the 6day creation thousands of years before Adam, he had to be tested to see if he could be trusted to teach the world the real truth about who the real God of Creation was. Adam was created mortal and would have died even IF he did not sin by not obeying God's command. The ONLY thing that would have kept him alive was the tree of life. When he was thrown out of the garden with the tree of life in it, he was now going to die from the consequence of his not obeying God, but not for the penalty which was execution on that day he ate from the tree. Now, take the time to read all about this for yourself.

Another thing, IF Adam had paid the penalty for his sin, then Jesus would not have had to come to this world in order to do this. Duh?

[fccool]

It's not the way you say it is... It's quite obvious. How can't you see it???? You really have no clue, do you? Duh! :)

[Dr. Rich]

What do you mean? Please be specific.

[BobRyan]

Fccool, you really have no clue, do you? Before Adam could become a witness to testify to the rest of mankind living outside of the garden who decended from mankind, both male and female created in the 6day creation thousands of years before Adam, he had to be tested to see if he could be trusted to teach the world the real truth

This is a joke right?

I thought you were talking about the actual Bible at first.

Apparently not.

in Christ,

Bob

[Dr. Rich]

No joke BR, try proving it wrong from the OT and the words of Jesus? Please be my guest.

[ClubV12]

Sometimes it just gets weirder and weirder around here... :)

[Overaged]

No joke BR, try proving it wrong from the OT and the words of Jesus? Please be my guest.

Try proving it right. You are the one who brought it up. Where did you get that fairytale from? Care to atleast share your references?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

No joke BR, try proving it wrong from the OT and the words of Jesus? Please be my guest.

Try proving it right. You are the one who brought it up. Where did you get that fairytale from? Care to atleast share your references?

Exactly my reaction. Tinfoil hat time...