Present doctrine of atonement fallacies

[John317]

Quote:

fccool:

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.

Quote:

LifeHiscost: 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.

You make a very good and accurate point, Life. Comparing masturbation with menstruation on the moral scale is like comparing apples and oranges, as they say. They're hardly the same.

Nor is maturbation the same or similar to a male's "night emissions." That is no more wrong than having a dream about having sex without benefit of clergy. We're not responsible for our dreams or for what our body does without the permission of the mind. Masturbation is a choice. It can be a habitual choice but it is still a choice. No one masturbates without choosing to do it. That's completely different from things that happen while we're asleep. And it's completely different, too, from menstruation, for obvious reasons.

I know someone will ask, what's the obvious difference?

Menstruation is something God made to happen in order for humans to procreate. Humans would cease to exist without it. (This clearly cannot be said of masturbation.) Therefore it is not morally wrong.

Masturbation, on the other hand, is a misuse or abuse of God's creation. (It is using sex for one's selfish pleasure, instead of giving or having pleasure with one's marriage partner.) He didn't make us so that we have to masturbate in order to procreate.

One of the main reasons-- and there are others--- that it's morally wrong is the thoughts and desires that fill the mind of the person who's masturbating. No such sinful thoughts and desires accompany menstruation.

(This subject actually is related to the topic of the thread, although I have a feeling that some people will not see it. It has to do with God's laws and requirements and whether God wants us to obey Him even when we can't always understand the reasons for the commandments or directions. This in turn is closely related to the topic of the atonement.)

[Gerr]

Quote:

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

Ok, what do SDA theologians think?

[John317]

Quote:

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.

You are right. But isn't masturbation the same thing in principle?

Masturnation is using one's sex organ for the purpose of private, selfish pleasure instead of using it as God intended us to use it: for procreation and sexual pleasure with one's marriage partner. In other words, God intended it to be used for another and not only for ourselves.

Another thing that Onan did that was evil is that he deliberately-- and even defiantly-- refused to fulfill his responsibility to his brother and thus to the communinity and to God.

[fccool]

Quote:

One of the main reasons-- and there are others--- that it's morally wrong is the thoughts and desires that fill the mind of the person who's masturbating. No such sinful thoughts and desires accompany menstruation.

John, you can make a point based on lust that could be used as "aid", and I'll address it later. Your point of implying that desire to please our "fleshly lusts" is sinful is not valid.

Example:

1) Hungry > Eating > Pleasure > Satisfaction

2) Sexual tension > Masturbation > Pleasure > Satisfaction

1) It's wrong to eat certain things, just like gluttony is work. Eating should be practiced with certain God-given parameters.

2) Likewise sexual tension should be dealt with certain parameters.

Masturbation without lust is possible, just like it is possible to eat without being a glutton.

All eating, drinking, and masturbation can bring glory to God. So, instead of making our youth guilty of the practice that they will eventually be confronted with... we have to teach them proper perspective, instead of denouncing it as sinful. There's a reason why Bible does not reject masturbation specifically as a sinful practice... because it's not.

[Gerr]

To no one in particular but addressed to all who are considering the subject of atonement.

The issue brought out by Paul in Rom 3 is: How can God be merciful and at the same time be just? How can one show love and yet still uphold the law? By the sheer stroke of genius which only the mind of an omniscient God could concoct, all the answers to the issues of substition, ransom/redemption, satisfaction/propitiation, moral influence, legal issues, etc. meet at the Cross. Even the angels are fascinated by it, and it will be even a subject that we will continue to study in the ages to come.

[fccool]

Masturabtion is using one's sex organ for the purpose of private, selfish pleasure instead of using it as God intended us to use it: for procreation and sexual pleasure with one's marriage partner.

John, this is the ideal case where we should be married.

God did not intend us to use meat, but would you classify desire for eating meat as a sinful desire? After all, we receive "selfish pleasure" from eating what we want. Does eating what we want (meat) would constitute sinful and selfish desire?

Being selfless does not mean that we don't do what we want to do within boundaries of God's will. God's will for us to have a partner, but it was not so for Priests. I don't suggest that OT priests masturbated, perhaps it would be preposterous to think so, but is it?

As one of my mentors stated in college 99% of boys admit to masturbation... the other 1% are liars.

[Gerr]

Quote:

One of the main reasons-- and there are others--- that it's morally wrong is the thoughts and desires that fill the mind of the person who's masturbating. No such sinful thoughts and desires accompany menstruation.

John, you can make a point based on lust that could be used as "aid", and I'll address it later. Your point of implying that desire to please our "fleshly lusts" is sinful is not valid.

Example:

1) Hungry > Eating > Pleasure > Satisfaction

2) Sexual tension > Masturbation > Pleasure > Satisfaction

1) It's wrong to eat certain things, just like gluttony is work. Eating should be practiced with certain God-given parameters.

2) Likewise sexual tension should be dealt with certain parameters.

Masturbation without lust is possible, just like it is possible to eat without being a glutton.

All eating, drinking, and masturbation can bring glory to God. So, instead of making our youth guilty of the practice that they will eventually be confronted with... we have to teach them proper perspective, instead of denouncing it as sinful. There's a reason why Bible does not reject masturbation specifically as a sinful practice... because it's not.

I think this is correct.

[teresaq]

im confused by your last two responses to me gerry. i dont know what you are saying...

[Gerr]

OT priests married.

[fccool]

OT priests married.

Yes, you are correct :)

[Gerr]

My last two responses to you:

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

Ans. Gerry:

Ok, what do SDA theologians think.

Originally Posted By: Gerry

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.

Ans. Teresaq: it seems to me you are mixing up the sacrifices and their meanings...

Ans. Gerry

How so?q

Originally Posted By: Teresaq

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

Ans. Gerry:

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.

Originally Posted By: Teresaq

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

Ans. Gerry:

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

Originally Posted By: Teresaq

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...

Ans. Gerry:

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

What in the above conversation did I fail to make myself clear?

[John317]

Quote:

fccool: There's a reason why Bible does not reject masturbation specifically as a sinful practice... because it's not.

You're right that the Bible doesn't say specifically that masturbation is sinful, but God raised up a prophet in these last day who did exactly that. Are we as individuals and as a church going to reject that message?

I can't envision Jesus Christ masturbating. Can you?

Can we honestly say that the Holy Spirit guides us to masturbate?

There are many sinful things that are not specifically mentioned in the Bible, so it's not a valid argument to say that since it is not specifically rejected by the Bible, it is not wrong.

God gives us principles and then expects us to use our reasoning to apply the principles to our lives. God couldn't possibly have mentioned by name every sinful temptation or act.

There, however, principles given in the Bible that (I'm convinced) show masturbation to be wrong. Some of these texts are:

Gal. 5: 19 is one: "Now the works of the old nature are wll known and include, for example, sexual vice [or sexual immorality], impurity [uncleaness], indecency [licentiousness],.."

New Century Version: "The wrong things the sinful self does are clear: being sexually unfaithful, not being pure, taking part in sexual sins.."

Notice Gal. 5: 23 says that among the fruit of the Holy Spirit are "love [agape, not eros],... faithfulness [loyalty]....self-control."

Also Philippians 4: 8: "Whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy-- meditate on these things."

I can imagine sex with one's wife as being included in the above, but not masturbation.

If you say you can praise God for masturbation, I will tell you that I know people who consider all kinds of unmentionable immoral acts to be lovely and good and praiseworthy. If we can praise God for these things, it says more about ourselves than about the truth or about God. There was a time when I also thought many evil things were lovely and good and noble.

We probably all know people who believe the Bible is wrong to condemn some sins. It's clear, then, that there are various and contradictory views of what constitutes sin.

But does the fact that not all are in agreement on whether certain things are sin mean that it all depends on whether human reason tells us it is?

I think the obvious answer is no. God doesn't define sin by people's ideas (although we are judged according to our honest and sincere understanding and conviction of what is sin and righteousness).

As you've said yourself, God's thoughts are not our thoughts. Human thoughts are largely that masturbation is OK and even good, but God sent a message through Ellen White to tell us differently. We can either accept or reject that message. It's up to us to agree or disagree, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a sin according to the principles laid down in the Bible and the plain words of the woman whom the church believes God inspired to give us His messages.

[pnattmbtc]

Regarding what I think, it seems to me to be based on a rather shallow understanding of the Ten Commandments.

I've asked you quite a number of times now the following questions without a direct answer from you. Please answer, or at least explain why your not answering:

1.Do you believe that God wants us to do things which violate our conscience? (or, to ask it another way: Do you think God would command us to do things we believe to be wrong?)

2.Do you think God wants us to do things without understanding why we are doing? If so, how is this not a slavish obedience? (or, to ask it another way: What would a slavish obedience be if not this? Remember when Jesus explained to His disciples that He no longer called them servants/slaves because a slave did not know what His master was doing, but He had explained things to them?)

[pnattmbtc]

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.

Where is this being said?

[pnattmbtc]

Masturbation, on the other hand, is a misuse or abuse of God's creation. (It is using sex for one's selfish pleasure, instead of giving or having pleasure with one's marriage partner.) He didn't make us so that we have to masturbate in order to procreate.

One of the main reasons-- and there are others--- that it's morally wrong is the thoughts and desires that fill the mind of the person who's masturbating. No such sinful thoughts and desires accompany menstruation.

(This subject actually is related to the topic of the thread, although I have a feeling that some people will not see it. It has to do with God's laws and requirements and whether God wants us to obey Him even when we can't always understand the reasons for the commandments or directions. This in turn is closely related to the topic of the atonement.)

It certainly seems like you understand reasons why masturbation is wrong. So there's the answer to your question. Just read what you wrote.

[pnattmbtc]

The issue brought out by Paul in Rom 3 is: How can God be merciful and at the same time be just?

[Nic Samojluk]

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.

[pnattmbtc]

God gives us principles and then expects us to use our reasoning to apply the principles to our lives.

That's right! God appeals to our reason. Good job!

[John317]

Quote:

John317:God gives us principles and then expects us to use our reasoning to apply the principles to our lives.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: That's right! God appeals to our reason. Good job!

Yes, of course, God does appeal to our reason. If you thought I didn't believe so, you weren't understanding what I've been saying.

The point I have been making is that there are times when human reason will not lead us to do God's will, yet it is still sin simply on the basis of God's commandment. God does not always explain the reasons for His commands and laws.

As the recent posts on this thread show, there are various, conflicting views of what constitutes sin, but God's will and His laws don't change to harmonize with man's reasonings.

Man's unsanctified reasoning powers are perverted and sinful, so they are frequently unreliable as a guide to right and wrong.

What do you think of the verse that says, "There is a way that seems right (reasonable?) unto a man but the way thereof leads to death"?

[teresaq]

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....

[teresaq]

To no one in particular but addressed to all who are considering the subject of atonement.

The issue brought out by Paul in Rom 3 is: How can God be merciful and at the same time be just? How can one show love and yet still uphold the law? By the sheer stroke of genius which only the mind of an omniscient God could concoct, all the answers to the issues of substition, ransom/redemption, satisfaction/propitiation, moral influence, legal issues, etc. meet at the Cross. Even the angels are fascinated by it, and it will be even a subject that we will continue to study in the ages to come.

i understand the angels were amazed at Christs forgiving of those mistreating Him...while in such pain...

[karl]

Christ's death was the ultimate expression that God gives His LIFE to us.

The focusing on Christ's death in modern theology, and especially forensic theology, has often obscured the fact that salvation is all about receiving His LIFE.

We need a theology of LIFE.

"If you would enter into life..."

"I have come that they might have life...."

"...should not perish but have everlasting life."

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

John317:God gives us principles and then expects us to use our reasoning to apply the principles to our lives.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: That's right! God appeals to our reason. Good job!

J:Yes, of course, God does appeal to our reason. If you thought I didn't believe so, you weren't understanding what I've been saying.

I've been asking you this question over and over again, without your answering. If you answer my questions, that makes it easier to understand what you're saying. Please answer my questions. Please answer them without my having to ask them ten or fifteen times.

One time I had to ask a question twenty times to get an answer. Literally, twenty times! Why should this be necessary?

Quote:

The point I have been making is that there are times when human reason will not lead us to do God's will,

This isn't something I've discussed or asked about about or made a comment about.

Quote:

yet it is still sin simply on the basis of God's commandment. God does not always explain the reasons for His commands and laws.

This is closer.

The questions I've been asking are:

1.Does God ask us to do things which we believe are morally wrong?

2.Does God expect us to do things that we don't understand what we are doing? (in regards to why it's right or wrong)

I've phrased these in different ways, but these are the general questions.

I've also been asking

3.What does it say about God's character if He commands us to do things without appealing to our reason or providing evidence as to why what He's asking us to do is right?

Quote:

As the recent posts on this thread show, there are various, conflicting views of what constitutes sin, but God's will and His laws don't change to harmonize with man's reasonings.

Again, not something I've been discussing, or commenting on, or asking about.

Quote:

Man's unsanctified reasoning powers are perverted and sinful, so they are frequently unreliable as a guide to right and wrong.

Same point.

Quote:

What do you think of the verse that says, "There is a way that seems right (reasonable?) unto a man but the way thereof leads to death"?

Please answer my questions.

Regarding this verse, I think it's pointing out that we need God. I certainly haven't said or implied otherwise.

[pnattmbtc]

Christ's death was the ultimate expression that God gives His LIFE to us.

[pnattmbtc]

Hey! Here's the blood transfusion reference I was looking for:

Quote:

What is the blood? Gen. 9:4 “But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.” What is the blood?—The life. Another text. Lev. 7:26 “Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings.” Again in Deut. 12:23: “Only be sure that thou eat not the blood; for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.” This is the Lord interpreting the law. Lev. 17:11: “For the life of the flesh is in the flood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood.”

The life is the blood. This is the Bible interpretation; and we will let it interpret itself. Then when we read that “the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin,” it does not mean that by some magic-charm process or incantation, it enables him to count us as cleansed. The whole living gospel was brought forth there in the sanctuary as clearly as it is here in the New Testament, and it is just as clearly applied to human lives and human hearts; but the devil stole it away.

In this dispensation, the living gospel is revealed to us in the incarnate One, Jesus of Nazareth; and yet man loses the gospel out of Christ my making the sign of the cross; and they say, We are safe, we have made the sign of the cross. They say that by some magic process or charm word or name by which they believe on Him very hard, it will save them. They are using it precisely the same way as the ark was used back there; and the Lord has let them be taken captive from time to time, to show them that the Word in that way does not have power to save. It is not any charm process, it is a living fact. God gave us His life in His Son that we might have life, and that we might have that life to live on the earth.

I am told that it is a scientific fact that if someone will allow his blood to be taken and transfused into the veins of a poor anemic person, the first thing the blood does is to purge out the poison and sickness, and then to build him up with a new life. New blood has been transfused into that person, and new life is imparted. Do you get the figure? We are saved by transfusing blood. God has opened His mighty heart, and poured out His life in Christ, for our salvation. He has given His life that we might take it and be purified with it, and live on earth by faith. And the life of His Son cleanseth us from all sin. (Fifield GCB 1897 Sermon #2)

I think I commented on this for Nic. Over 100 years ago here's the blood transfusion reference.