Present doctrine of atonement fallacies

[teresaq]

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.

thats ok, but wouldnt we want to know what adventist thought is as well?

but as i said before, the levitical system would show who did the killing...i just assumed you would check...

Lev 4:28 Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned.

Lev 4:29 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.

it seems to me that if the sinner was to kill the sacrifice then, per Gods instructions, those were the instructions to adam and eve...it appears abel understood it so since theres no record of God slaying the sacrificial victim...

then God took those skins and clothed adam and eve....no problem there...

[teresaq]

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.

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

It wasn't hers to eat of. I don't think this would have been difficult for her to understand.

Quote:

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

There isn't much to understand here.

Quote:

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

Why do you think God would desire that people do things they don't understand the reasons for?

When the disciples were walking on the road to Emmaus, Christ didn't immediately reveal Himself. Instead, He gave them a Bible study. Why? Because he wanted their faith to be based on evidence.

God never asks us to believe something without providing evidence for that (SC 105). Why does God do so? Because He wants us to follow Him because we are convinced that doing so is right! We can't be convinced that doing something is right if we don't understand what we're doing. How could we?

It's this sort of thinking that leads to all sorts of atrocities being committed in the name of God. God doesn't ask us to do something which violates our conscience. He wants us to do right because *we* are convinced it's right, not simply because He said so.

Quote:

Here is a test which all may apply if they will. None need be left in uncertainty and doubt. There is always sufficient evidence upon which to base an intelligent faith.(Signs of the Times, December 30, 1886)

Why does God provide such evidence? The following gives an insight into this question:

Quote:

God does not force the will or judgment of any. He takes no pleasure in a slavish obedience. He desires that the creatures of His hands shall love Him because He is worthy of love. He would have them obey Him because they have an intelligent appreciation of His wisdom, justice, and benevolence. And all who have a just conception of these qualities will love Him because they are drawn toward Him in admiration of His attributes. (GC 541)

An "obedience" not based on reason would be precisely what God does not want -- a slavish obedience.

to add to that, are we truly obeying if we dont understand....perhaps then we just think we are obeying when we are so off-base as to not even be in the ballpark.

well, anyway my experience is that God has been more than happy to answer my "why" questions, He didnt seem to be offended at all that i said i didnt understand...and the answers were awesome!

[teresaq]

What evidence has God provided that explains why it's wrong, based on human reason?

john, how does this question make sense to you?

if God provides evidence that shows something to wrong, whether we accept or reject it, then how could it possibly be based on human reasoning....

[Gerr]

Lev 4:29 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.

it seems to me that if the sinner was to kill the sacrifice then, per Gods instructions, those were the instructions to adam and eve...it appears abel understood it so since theres no record of God slaying the sacrificial victim...

then God took those skins and clothed adam and eve....no problem there,

[teresaq]

Let's say that I'm convinced there's nothing wrong with having a gay relationship and that I simply reject the Bible statements about it because they make no sense to me. According to your idea, that is what I should do if I honestly do not understand why the Bible commands me not to do those things. God does not expect me to obey laws I don't understand or agree with. Isn't that your position?

john, you consistently seem to see some kind of "encouragement" to follow through in your "temptation" from those who view some subject differently than you do...it seems to me that the problem is more in how you are reading what is said than in what is actually being said...

[teresaq]

John, suppose Ellen had told us that emptying the bladder is a sin. Would you accept this by faith?

Imagine the stress you are imposing on a soldier who might be away from his wife for many months! ...

this is some interesting reasoning here.

trying to figure out how the second sentence follows the first...

am also noting that a man certainly wrote the post... lol.

[pnattmbtc]

Nobody? When an Israelite brought a lamb to the brass altar, laid his hand on the head and confessed his sins, what was he doing? It seems to me, the idea of substitution went hand in hand with the institution of the sacrificial system. Look at Lev 17:11, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life. ESV. Sin is serious, and sinners cannot provide the remedy without giving up their own lives. Instead of the sinner's blood, someone else's blood is substituted for his!

[fccool]

Nobody? When an Israelite brought a lamb to the brass altar, laid his hand on the head and confessed his sins, what was he doing? It seems to me, the idea of substitution went hand in hand with the institution of the sacrificial system. Look at Lev 17:11, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life. ESV. Sin is serious, and sinners cannot provide the remedy without giving up their own lives. Instead of the sinner's blood, someone else's blood is substituted for his!

[John317]

Quote:

John317:What evidence has God provided that explains why it's wrong, based on human reason?

Quote:

teresaq(sda): john, how does this question make sense to you?

if God provides evidence that shows something to wrong, whether we accept or reject it, then how could it possibly be based on human reasoning....

We're talking about evidence, which agrees with human reasoning, that homosexuality is a sin.

The Bible does show that homosexuality is wrong. God's commandments and requirements are clear. So we're not talking about Bible evidence that it's wrong.

Rather, the question is, What evidence or explanation has God provided that shows God's command is in harmony with human reasoning?

What's your answer?

[pnattmbtc]

I have wondered about the same thing. My only answer is that

the righteous life of ONE can substitute for the many is because it is the very life of our INFINITE CREATOR that was shed and therefore efficacious to stand for a finite number of sinners.

[teresaq]

Not only that, per the rule of substitution, if the one substituted for was sentenced to die, then the Substitute had to die.

[pnattmbtc]

Rather, the question is, What evidence or explanation has God provided that shows God's command is in harmony with human reasoning?

I'm interested in the question of, if we assume God wants us to do things which we don't understand, have no moral conviction regarding, which bypasses our conscience and reason -- What does this say about God?

[teresaq]

[fccool]

John,

First of all, you alluding to masturbation. There's no indication from the Bible that it is to sin to masturbate... If we go about describing sin as "going against the original purpose", then I think we could confidently say that chewing gum could be described as an act of "oral masturbation". Is chewing gum a sin?

I know I'm oversimplifying it, but God permitted certain things that He originally did not and some practices He does not permit anymore.

1) Incest is a sin today

2) Eating animal flesh is not a sin

#1 acts in God's original purpose to populate the earth

#2 does not act with God's original purpose

There's nothing inherently wrong with sexual stimulation, and it is in fact a natural body function, and arousal and ejaculation can happen apart from any sexual stimulation.

If masturbation is a sin, then you'd have to throw menstruation in the same category.

Lust is clearly a sin. Masturbation would be highly debatable. Sure, people can be addicted to it, but people can be addicted to sex likewise. It has nothing to do with the act being sinful.

A bit off topic perhaps. Maybe should be a separate thread.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: 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?

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: John, suppose Ellen had told us that emptying the bladder is a sin. Would you accept this by faith? Imagine the stress you are imposing on a soldier who might be away from his wife for many months! It seems to me that you are working under the assumption that Ellen White was infallible, and that everything she borrowed from others was infallible.

That's like asking me what I would think or do if Ellen White had said eating or breathing is a sin. It's a foolish question.

By the way, I know people who ask the same question about the Bible. They're trying to suggest that if people believe God's words simply because they're in the Bible, we would believe the moon is made of apple pie if the Bible said it.

The question itself shows a lack of understanding of what constitutes true faith/trust/confidence in God and in the Bible.

[teresaq]

Quote:

John317:What evidence has God provided that explains why it's wrong, based on human reason?

Quote:

teresaq(sda): john, how does this question make sense to you?

if God provides evidence that shows something to be wrong, whether we accept or reject it, then how could it possibly be based on human reasoning....

We're talking about evidence, which agrees with human reasoning, that homosexuality is a sin.

The Bible does show that homosexuality is wrong. God's commandments and requirements are clear. So we're not talking about Bible evidence that it's wrong.

Rather, the question is, What evidence or explanation has God provided that shows God's command is in harmony with human reasoning?

What's your answer?

[fccool]

Quote:

By the way, I know people who ask the same question about the Bible. They're trying to suggest that if people believe God's words simply because they're in the Bible, we would believe the moon is made of apple pie if the Bible said it.

The question itself shows a lack of understanding of what constitutes true faith/trust/confidence in God and in the Bible.

John,

I think that we have to interpret Bible in certain context... woundn't you agree?

We have to concider the day and the age that it was written in. We have to consider who it was addressed to, and we have to consider applicability of certain things in our culture.

You can't take certain things based on ancient practice of these and carry these over to be the "thing for us to follow and believe".

Just as as I have noted before, God spoke to ancients in language of their own, and based on their understanding of things... thus it became know that "bat" is a "bird", and that rabbits chew cud and "All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you"

None of these are true, but it was the ancient understanding to be so. God explained in context of the culture. I does not mean, however that the cultural understanding was examplary. Otherwise we should be obligated to marry a widow of our brother and etc.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: Let's say that I'm convinced there's nothing wrong with having a gay relationship and that I simply reject the Bible statements about it because they make no sense to me. According to your idea, that is what I should do if I honestly do not understand why the Bible commands me not to do those things. God does not expect me to obey laws I don't understand or agree with. Isn't that your position?

Quote:

teresaq (sda): john, you consistently seem to see some kind of "encouragement" to follow through in your "temptation" from those who view some subject differently than you do...it seems to me that the problem is more in how you are reading what is said than in what is actually being said...

This is false, teresaq (sda) because, first, it is no longer a temptation for me as long as I am in close relationship with Christ. I have no wish to practice those sins, becasue the Holy Spirit has convicted me that it's wrong and that I ought not to do it. God has done what I prayed that He would do-- He's removed those desires from my mind and has caused me to hate those activities that I was adddicted to only a few years ago. I attribute it to my study of Christ as our mediator in the heavenly sanctuary. From the Most Holy Place, Christ not only covers our sins but blots them out. He really does provided power to us to resist and overcome all sin in our lives. That's the central teaching of the Three Angels Messages.

So I do not see anything in what has been said so far as an encouragement to practice homosexuality. Even if my pastor were to tell me that God will bless homosexual practices (as some pastors will one day say we can be blessed by God as we keep Sunday), I wouldn't do it. I'm perfectly satisfied with the commandment alone. I don't need an explanation from God as to why He gave the commandment against the practice of homosexuality or against fornication or other immorality.

I am posing the question because it seems a reasonable one from the viewpoint of gay people.

We do not see any reason given in the Bible that makes sense to us for homosexuality to be wrong. Can you give evidence of a "reason" that makes sense for not practicing homosexuality?

The statement was made on the thread that God never requires us to do anything for which God has not provided good reason to do it.

Notice that it is not being argued that the commandment or prohibition is not clear. It is being said that the explanation for the commandment always appeals to human reasoning.

How does this apply to the practice of homosexuality?

[John317]

Quote:

John317: Rather, the question is, What evidence or explanation has God provided that shows God's command is in harmony with human reasoning?

Quote:

pnattmbtc: I'm interested in the question of, if we assume God wants us to do things which we don't understand, have no moral conviction regarding, which bypasses our conscience and reason -- What does this say about God?

Please carefully study the following-- particularly the words printed in bold-- and tell me what you think. It deals directly with the issues we're discussing on this thread:

Quote:

There have been many alarming reports in the news recently; one was that 1998 was the worst

year for bankruptcies and disasters in history. In fact, reports state that the cost in dollars for disasters in 1998 totaled more than all the disasters in the whole decade of the 1980’s. One of the most shocking and appalling news stories was that of a pornography ring of some 200 people being recently arrested for selling pictures over the Internet of children as young as three years old being raped, physically abused, and sexually molested; and just as appalling was that many people were actually paying to see the pictures! Even the CNN reporter who covered the story stated that the story had the “Biblical” overtones of a “perverse” people. Are these sins more acceptable than those for which Sodom and Gomorrha and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire? Jude 7.

Fraud, strikes, terrible accidents, robbery, rape, riots, murder, terrorism, and war are filling the land with crime and violence of every sort. Throughout the world, we see terrible physical and spiritual hunger wherever we look. We see the evidence of moral decadence and deceit in the highest levels of government and religion, and we hear the whispers of nuclear treason in high places and feel the foreboding of nuclear bombs unaccounted for. Sin has become a science, vice and indifference a consecrated part of religion. Love of money, lust of the flesh, pride of the heart, are making the Word of God of none effect even among professed believers in whose lives pagan traditions, political correctness, and private interpretations of Scripture determine the standard of conduct

and speech. To have peace, to be on the side of the majority, to maintain the status quo,

even if it means being united in apostasy and lawlessness, seems more important to the masses

than honesty and truth.

Visualize yourself as an inhabitant of a world where there never has been sin. You learn that Jesus is planning to release some rehabilitated criminals from earth on your planet. You would have a right to feel some concern. You would be justified in asking some questions.

“Lord, do You think it’s really safe to do this?” And the Lord can say, “I believe it is. But judge for yourself. Let me ask this candidate for universal life some questions and see what you think.”

So the Lord asks the earthling some questions. “We have a requirement that no one shall kill anyone else. Are you willing to obey that requirement?” The earthling replies, “Why, yes, that makes sense. That’s reasonable. I’ll go along with that.”

“The next requirement is that you shall not steal. What about that?” “Surely, that makes sense. I understand that. I’ll go along with that.”

“You shall not bear false witness,” Jesus says. The same answer is given. “Of course, that makes sense, that’s reasonable. I’ll co-operate.” And so on through nine of the Commandments.

You reply, “No, Lord, He is not obeying You, he is agreeing with You. In every case he’ll do

Your will because it appears to him to be reasonable. But, given his limited knowledge and his limited experience, it is entirely possible that You may sometime make a requirement of the government of the universe that does not make sense to him. What will he do then? That’s what I want to know.”

The Lord is able to answer, “I anticipated that problem and built into the Ten Commandments a question to cover it.”

Pointing to the fourth Commandment, He asks the earthling, “We have a requirement that the

seventh day of the week be devoted to rest and to worship rather than to your own inclinations

and pursuits. What do you say about that?” The earthling may reply, “I can clearly see the value of resting. You can depend on me to rest. I’ll go along with that. But as far as resting on a particular day is concerned, I don’t see any reason why I should rest one day when another day might be more convenient for me.” I can hear you saying, “No, Lord! We don’t want him here! He is exalting his human reason above Your requirement.”

If, on the other hand, the earthling says in response to the Sabbath question, “Lord, I believe in resting. You can count on me to rest. As far as the day of rest is concerned, it’s not at all clear to me why one day needs to be the particular day of rest, but it doesn’t need to be clear to me, Lord; if that is what YOU want, that settles it for me.”

Then the Lord turns to you and asks, What do you think?” I believe you would say, “I think he’s all right. Let him come.”

The supreme test of a person’s relationship to God is, what does that person do when the reason for one of God’s requirements is not clear to him? I am astounded at those theologians who say that they recognize some moral value in the principle of resting in the fourth Commandment, but see nothing of moral value in the specification of a time for rest. To me, time specification is the only moral value there. Rest, of itself, is a principle of health, not morality. The only moral value incorporated in the fourth Commandment is in the seventh-day-ness of that Commandment because the Lord sanctified and blessed the 7th day and none other, that those who keep it in Spirit and in Truth would also be sanctified and blessed.*

Some say “Don’t be so literal, it doesn’t make any difference what day one keeps, as long as one keeps it in honour of the Lord!”, but how can we honour our Lord while we are disobeying Him? When people say this, it makes me wonder if their property values are higher than their moral values or have they been deceived by ministers and priests who have been partial in the Law? Mal. 2:9.

Jesus says: until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Matt.5:18. If it doesn’t make any difference what day we keep why don’t we keep the day the Lord says to keep, which is the 7th day, commonly known as Saturday?

The question, “What Would Jesus Do” today about the Sabbath is answered by the question, “What Did Jesus Do” about it when He walked on earth? He that says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk, even as He walked. As His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for to read. 1John 2:6, Luke 4:16.

Jesus says about these last days: Pray that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Matt.24:20, Mark 2:27. The Sabbath was made for man by the Lord ceasing work the day after His work of creation. The Sabbath day was our Creator’s most important creation made for man during creation week; why, then, do creationists always refer only to ‘the six days of creation” leaving out the most important day the Lord made?

Jesus kept the Sabbath when He walked on earth. He didn’t keep the 500+ man-made rules the scribes and Pharisees had added to it and they hated Him so much for breaking their man-made laws they broke God’s Royal Law, plotting His death and carrying their plot out on the cross.

When men of the gospel turn the royal Law into a four letter word and are ashamed and afraid to use the word in any way, shape, or form in connection with being saved than we can know that the end is near. They declare, in the civil arena, that “No man, not even the President, is above the law”, then boast, in their spiritual realm, of being saved even though they daily trample on God’s Law.

Priests and ministers tamper with and trample on God’s Law and weekly force their people to swallow false gods and false theories. The greater the distance put between the gospel and the Ten Commandments, the more civil laws a nation enacts. Such is the case today, never has that distance been greater and never have we enacted so many laws to keep people in line, and yet, the number and percentage of men and women in prison is higher than ever before.

People obey the Law when they love and respect the Maker and Enforcer of the Law, but when the makers and enforcers of laws are known to be Law breakers themselves, who will love and respect their laws or their authority? Which is more important a man’s vows to his wife or a man’s vows to his country? If men in high places don’t keep their vows to their wives, how can they be trusted to keep their vows to their country?

When it comes to the Law and the Sabbath, what does one call those, who make the writings of Paul their final authority [and not Jesus], quoting out of context things in his writings “that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” 2Pet3:16. Should we called them 'Paulians' instead of Christians since they always try to use Paul as their saviour when it comes to the Law and the Sabbath?

Paul was inspired to say: Whatsoever is not of faith is sin, and through faith we establish the Law. Rom.14:23, 3:31. Faith establishes the Law; Sunday, the 1st day, does not establish God’s Law, it destabilizes it! Since Sunday sacredness is not of faith, and whatsoever is not of faith is sin, then, we must conclude that those who are pushing Sunday sacredness on others are pushing sin on them. A better name for those who are so determined to force a false sabbath on God's people would be 'Hellians'.

When God spoke and wrote the Ten Commandments with His own finger, He especially said Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy” because He foresaw how pronounced and widespread would be the forgetting of the 7th day Sabbath. He made the Sabbath a memorial both of creation and redemption in that the Lord rested on the 7th day after His finished work of creation and He rested on the 7th day sleeping in the grave after His finished work of redemption. The Lord’s day spoken of in Rev. 1:10 by John, the apostle whom Jesus loved, could only be the 7th day Sabbath which God calls My holy day in Isaiah 8:13.

The Sabbath Commandment is the most important of God’s Ten Commandments. If we will faithfully keep the Lord’s Sabbath we will faithfully keep all His Commandments. Some, in order to justify themselves in not keeping the Sabbath, say the 7th day is the Jewish Sabbath, but nowhere in Scripture is the Sabbath spoken of as the Sabbath of the Jews, but always as the Sabbath of the Lord. Only when you leave Jesus, the Messiah, out of the Sabbath does the 7th day become the sabbath of the Jews. [They entered not into rest because of unbelief in Christ. Heb. 4:6]

The 7th day Sabbath is, especially in these last days when time has become an idol to many, the most important Commandment because in true Sabbathkeeping, one not only ceases normal work, but it is the commencement of a weekly date, when we meet with the one true Lover of our souls in which we can acquire an intimate knowledge of Him away from the distractions of a world full of the darkness of sin, pain, and sorrow. No love relationship can grow and flourish without those involved spending regular quality time with each other.

This is the importance of the 7th day Sabbath, if we will keep it faithfully and truly, we will come to know Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Sabbath, and, knowing Him, we will want to keep all His Commandments, because to know Him is to love Him.

We are living in the closing scenes of this earth’s history. Many cannot and will not imagine their world coming to an end, but Jesus says: Be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh. Matt. 24:44. When He comes there will be no more second chances as the secret rapturists teach; how many second chances do we need? He comes as a thief suddenly without warning, but not secretly, because the whole world will know it when He comes: Behold, He cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see Him, and they also which pierced Him, and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of Him. For the Lord, Himself, shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God....

Rev. 1:7, 1Thess. 4:16.

The demons are taking control because so many can't rest in the Lord and wait on Him, but impatiently take things into their own hands. It is the Lord Who says: Behold I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. Isa. 28:16, KJV. Jesus says He is “the Lord of the Sabbath ” and if we come unto Him, He will give us that Sabbath rest, that foretaste of heaven every week, ever learning of Jesus and ever coming to the knowledge of the truth as it is in Him; a knowledge we can take with us in our souls for the rest of the week and not for the rush of it.

Source: http://home.bluemarble.net/~heartcom/atestandasign.html

[LifeHiscost]

John,

If masturbation is a sin, then you'd have to throw menstruation in the same category.

Lust is clearly a sin. Masturbation would be highly debatable. It has nothing to do with the act being sinful.

Menstruation is something the body does without specific acts of

personal determination. If masturbation is considered to be a worthwhile occupation then where would we place Onan.

"And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.

And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.

And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also." Genesis 38:8-10 KJV

It could be perceived that Onan was only the victim of disregarding a duty of raising up seed to his deceased brother, which appears to be the case. If that were the only reason for the severity of the sentence, then why didn't Onan just stay out of the tent instead of getting his jollies and interrupting the primary purpose of the encounter?

Just asking.

"All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any."1 Cor 6:12 KJV

"All things are legitimate [permissible--and we are free to do anything we please], but not all things are helpful (expedient, profitable, and wholesome). All things are legitimate, but not all things are constructive [to character] and edifying [to spiritual life]."

1 Cor 10:23 AMP

"For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish."Galatians 5:16 NKJV

Regards!

[fccool]

Quote:

If that were the only reason for the severity of the sentence, then why didn't Onan just stay out of the tent instead of getting his jollies and interrupting the primary purpose of the encounter?

Onan did not masturbate. Onan, how should we say it?... withdrew at the peak moment. It's a common contraceptive practice in both modern and ancient cultures. Sorry, can't use Onan as an example of masturbation.

It is unclear as far as the reason why Onan withdrew, but what is clear... we can't turn this verse as a claim that masturbation of itself is wrong.

My point about menstruation is equating it with ejaculation that men experience in pre-pubescent and post-pubescent ages... something we call "wet dreams".

It is not uncommon for men to be aroused to the point of involuntary ejaculation.

I don't believe that the verses that you follow up with deal with the issue. Masturbation can be a beneficial practice as means of preventing sexual immorality... yet we don't teach it or see it that way because it is a "taboo". It can be used for the glory of God, no matter how odd it may seem to you.

See a very good article dealing with the issue:

http://www.themarriagebed.com/pages/bible/app/masturbation/mastsin.shtml

and perhaps we can discuss it in the different thread. It amazes me how discussion can deteriorate from the nature of atonement into the subject of masturbation :)

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

[Dr. Shane]

Onan was not masturbating. If he was he would have been by himself. What he did was coitus interruptus which involved another person - his sister-in-law. He used her for his own sexual pleasure - like she was a prostitute.

[LifeHiscost]

Would that be consistent with this Word?

"Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.

Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.

Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it."1 Corinthians 10:9-13 KJV

I agree you did say, "certain things", indicating that some thing were present truth for that time period. However when it comes to the lust of men, the only thing that has changed is the overwhelming prevalence of it in the society we live in.

"As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

For just as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, [men] marrying and [women] being given in marriage, until the [very] day when Noah went into the ark,

And they did not know or understand until the flood came and swept them all away--so will be the coming of the Son of Man." Matthew 24:37-39 AMP

Regards!

[Gerr]

quote]

Ok, I see your point and the same thought flashed through my mind for a split second. But remember what Abraham said when Isaac asked him, "we have the wood & the fire, but where is the lamb?". His reply was, "GOD will provide." And also notice that during the Day of Atonement, it was the High Priest who killed the sacrificial animals. So in the Levitical system, the sinner himself brings/provides/kills the lamb. In the antitypical service, it is God who provides Lamb. In the Levitical system, the high priest kills the sacrificial animals during the Day of Atonement, but in the antitypical service, it was sinners who killed the Lamb. So it appears to me that one cannot have a hard and fast rule that it is always the sinner himself who has to kill the animal. In Job 1, it was Job who offered the burnt offerings in case his children had sinned during the feast meriments. it seems to me you are mixing up the sacrifices and their meanings...

How so?

Quote:

God didnt kill the ram in the case of abraham...and abraham still was under the assumption he was to slay isaac...

But the point I was making is that it is not always the case that the culprit sinner was not in all cases of sin offering the one who always killed the sacrificial animal.

Quote:

adam and eve were not in the day of atonement...they were making a sin offering...

But the sin offering prefigured the final atonement to be made that One & final sacrifice.

the day of atonement, was, well the day of atonement...different circumstances, but did not prohibit any from bringing any sacrifice and confessing any sins they might be remembering...

job was interceding for his children in case they had sinned. if they had sinned it would have been on them to to do their own confessing...

And was not the sacrificing of that animal in the garden an act of intercession by one member of the Godhead?