Present doctrine of atonement fallacies

[pnattmbtc]

I believe that she was referring to self abuse, because she identified all the terrible results of such practice. If I am in error then we would have to conclude that perhaps we should be celibate. I hope you do not believe that engaging in normal sexual activity with one’s spouse results in all those dreadful diseases.

Nature teaches that when the bladder is full there is a need to empty it; likewise when sperm accumulates there is a need to get rid of it. If a young man waits for nature to do this work, this might take place at the most embarrassing moment, like when he is on his first or second date with his girlfriend.

There are anecdotal incidences like this having taken place. Do you believe that this is the best approach to this practical problem? Doesn’t your approach tend to increase the likelihood that the temptation to violate the Seventh Commandment would be greater?

God has provided a means by which sperm accumulation can be dealt with, which is by nocturnal emissions. If you wish to quote Ellen White, this is how she states this issue should be dealt with.

Masturbation is virtually always combined with impure thoughts, which is the greater problem. I'm sure it's possible to masturbate while thinking of something else besides sex, but that would be rather odd, and exceedingly rare.

The anecdotal incidences you are referring to have nothing to do with masturbation.

Before I knew anything about Ellen White, I knew masturbation was wrong. It's hard to fathom how one wouldn't be aware of this.

[Nic Samojluk]

Sorry, you'll never make it to heaven based on your obedience because you are never living Christ's life and His life answers all the law.

[pnattmbtc]

I have a better explanation. saywa God never intended Abraham to kill Issac. To understand this we need to look at Abraham's history. Are you guys up for it?

I don't think anyone here believes God intended for God to kill Isaac. Perhaps what you meant to say is that God did not instruct Abraham to kill Isaac(?)

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

But provisions had been made in the counsels of the Father and the Son to meet this emergency. It had been provided that, should Adam fall a prey to the tempter's power, a ransom should be found in the Son of God, who should become man's Redeemer. An opportunity should be given to man to repent of his sin, and, through faith in Christ as his personal Saviour, to be restored to the divine image and favor. After the fall, the Lord said unto the serpent, "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." {ST, October 8, 1894 par. 7}

Notice that even Ellen White expressed this with a contingency.

There are several places where she does this. For example:

Quote:

Remember that Christ risked all. For our redemption, heaven itself was imperiled.(COL 196)

Quote:

Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss.

The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth! (DA 49)

Risk, of course, necessitates the possibility of failure, meaning that it was not 100% certain that Christ would succeed, meaning that God was not 100% certain that Christ would succeed.

[Nic Samojluk]

Yes! How could he? Neither did he intend to convey the notion that it was his original plan that the Jewish leaders choose to crucify Jesus Christ

[pnattmbtc]

p:You'd be much better off, if your desire is to try to open the minds of others to another way of seeing things, if you just avoided the subject of the Spirit of Prophecy altogether and simply stayed with Scripture.

N:This is like saying: You should avoid the use of a flashlight or a candle because we have much better lighting systems today. Ellen White said that her writing represents a lesser light which should lead us to the greater light which is the Bible. I do believe this and I follow her advice.

[pnattmbtc]

Yes, there is misinformation and disagreements. Nevertheless, most experts do agree that she did borrow extensively. When you add to this the fact that she seemed to deny dependency on other writers, you have to admit that we need to test her writings by the Bible. She left us with no other alternative.

This is the sort of ignorant, negative comment I'm referring to. If you'd wish to open a thread, we can discuss this. If you'll look at the reference I provided, you'll see that the "experts" you refer to are dishing out malarkey.

[Nic Samojluk]

God has provided a means by which sperm accumulation can be dealt with, which is by nocturnal emissions.

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

But provisions had been made in the counsels of the Father and the Son to meet this emergency. It had been provided that, should Adam fall a prey to the tempter's power, a ransom should be found in the Son of God, who should become man's Redeemer. An opportunity should be given to man to repent of his sin, and, through faith in Christ as his personal Saviour, to be restored to the divine image and favor. After the fall, the Lord said unto the serpent, "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." {ST, October 8, 1894 par. 7}

Notice that even Ellen White expressed this with a contingency.

There are several places where she does this. For example:

Quote:

Remember that Christ risked all. For our redemption, heaven itself was imperiled.(COL 196)

Quote:

Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss.

The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth! (DA 49)

Risk, of course, necessitates the possibility of failure, meaning that it was not 100% certain that Christ would succeed, meaning that God was not 100% certain that Christ would succeed.

YES UNDEED!

[pnattmbtc]

There are nocturnal emissions and there are diurnal and evening ones. When a young man goes on his first date, the close physical presence of a member of the opposite sex exerts a stronger stimulation than simply involuntary dreaming.

Besides, nocturnal emissions means you have to throw the bed sheets into the washing machine in the middle of the night. It is a yukky experience.

[LifeHiscost]

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.

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

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.

I'll admit it probably is hard for some to see how the subject of yielding to personal pleasuring can be related to the subject of atonement. I was given a view of the atonement by someone I respected and chose to accept what I consider to be a little accepted premise of God's willingness to fight our battles for us.

The description given of the atonement was a breakdown of the word, atonement, to describe what Jesus wanted for all. When Jesus offered the atonement to me for my benefit, it meant I could receive at-one-ment, through the power of His Holy Spirit.

Since I was convicted that self-pleasuring was sinful and it was a white-knuckle experience for me, keeping me from having the closeness to Jesus I desired, I first asked Him to remove that which I felt I had no control over, nightly episodes of sexual contacts. From the first night the prayer was offered, the deliverance was complete. Received...., at-one-ment!

During the day, temptation, yes. But temptation is not the sin. Nor is the victory over temptation ours but to claim the promise given by the Savior in which we say we put our trust.

"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 10:13 KJV

"Please forgive me if I have offended you in any way. The Lord will surely reward you with a lasting dynasty, for you are fighting the Lord’s battles. And you have not done wrong throughout your entire life.

1 Samuel 25:28 NLT emphasis mine LHC

"For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places."

Ephesians 6:12 NKJV

Blessings!

[LifeHiscost]

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.

"So now that you know God (or should I say, now that God knows you), why do you want to go back again and become slaves once more to the weak and useless spiritual principles of this world?"Galatians 4:9 NLT

I would be interested where you might find biblical evidence of one iota of self-pleasuring as being a gift of God.

"It is the Spirit Who gives life [He is the Life-giver]; the flesh conveys no benefit whatever [there is no profit in it]. The words (truths) that I have been speaking to you are spirit and life."John 6:63 AMP

Regards!

[LifeHiscost]

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?)

"And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common."Acts 10:13-15 KJV

While it is true, in context this was meant to be an object lesson for Peter to call no man unclean. However, Peter was unaware of that to begin with. So, yes, God does sometimes ask us to do that which our conscience tells us is wrong to do. Our conscience can only be a faithful guide when we are aware of the Word's guidance.

Regards!

[LifeHiscost]

Originally Posted By: John317

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?

"“ Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD, “ Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool."Isaiah 1:18 NKJV

Does God's reasoning always appeal to His children? This will only happen when men are without flaw and know their Lord without distrust.

Regards!

[LifeHiscost]

Do not think that I would condemn anyone. How could I? I'm just serious about something that I know destroys lives.

John, I read your whole post and encourage you to spend some time finding out about Cherie Peters' ministry, "Celebrating in Recovery", if you have not already seen them. While I deduce you have no great need of its' power for present success in your walk with Jesus, having experienced its' gifts for many of those Jesus is reaching out to in this society's great need, I believe it would be a gift by God to you, for some of the pleasures of sitting at the feet of Jesus. I would be glad to send you a DVD I have of her ministry if you would like to PM me as to where it might be delivered.

"Then He said to him, “A certain man gave a great supper and invited many, and sent his servant at supper time to say to those who were invited, ‘Come, for all things are now ready.’

But they all with one accord began to make excuses. The first said to him, ‘I have bought a piece of ground, and I must go and see it. I ask you to have me excused.’ And another said, ‘I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I am going to test them. I ask you to have me excused.’ Still another said, ‘I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.’ So that servant came and reported these things to his master.

Then the master of the house, being angry, said to his servant, ‘Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in here the poor and the maimed and the lame and the blind.’

And the servant said, ‘Master, it is done as you commanded, and still there is room.’ Then the master said to the servant, ‘Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled. For I say to you that none of those men who were invited shall taste my supper.’”" Luke 14:16-24 NKJV

Blessings!

[LifeHiscost]

Originally Posted By: teresa

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

Excellent again! To me, the experience of Abraham teaches us that God did not require and did not want the death of his Son. It is high time that we blame the one who had been "a murderer from the beginning" for the crucifixion of Jesus."

Very little is said about the enemy of souls. But once said, the best way to combat him is to say a lot about victory in Christ.

Regards!

[LifeHiscost]

You may believe that it was "inspired commentary"... but her statement was in fact ... word-for-word repetition of accepted though on the subject by her contemporaries and predecessors, which again and again proven to be untrue FOR OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of people.

And the majority of people will continue to see those commentaries as false.

Praise God for the narrow way, plainly pointed out for all to see, though accepted by only a small minority.

"Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."

Matthew 7:14 NKJV

Regards!

[Robert]

The requirements are the same. Notice how Jesus answered the young ruler:

Quote:

18A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 19“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 20You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’b” 21“All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said. 22When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

With this response, Jesus made it very clear that under the New Covenant, obedience to God’s Law is still required. The only difference is that under the New Covenant God’s Law is written in our hearts instead of two Tablets of Stone.

Clearly this man wanted heaven by his performance (see verse 18). Immediately Jesus tries to correct his theology by the statement, "No one is good—except God"! But, because this man insisted on doing something to gain heaven, Jesus gave him terms of the OC: "If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments" [Matt 19:17]

Remember what EGW said? "Complete obedience is the only condition that meets the requirement of the law. “God is not a man, that He should lie.” God’s law is the rule of His government. He says, “This do, and thou shalt live.” But to the disobedient He says, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them.”

The terms of the “old covenant” were, Obey and live: “If a man do, he shall even live in them” (Eze. 20:11; Lev. 18:5); but “cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them.” Deut. 27:26.

Jesus gave this man the OC in order to take his pride and put it in the dust of the ground. That's the design of the OC terms.

So you've got this one completely wrong....

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

You'd be much better off, if your desire is to try to open the minds of others to another way of seeing things, if you just avoided the subject of the Spirit of Prophecy altogether and simply stayed with Scripture.

This is like saying: You should avoid the use of a flashlight or a candle because we have much better lighting systems today. Ellen White said that her writing represents a lesser light which should lead us to the greater light which is the Bible. I do believe this and I follow her advice.

But since the Bible is our ultimate source of authority, I think pnatt's advice is sound. That's why you don't see me quoting her as authority unless someone brings her up first. I believe in her prophetic ministry, but by using her instead of the Bible for authority, we have been charged with being a cult.

[LifeHiscost]

Your quote above is Old Covenant. Why? The demand is "obey and live". While growth does occur in the believer he/she is not living Christ's life.

One will be allowed into the Kingdom of Heaven when they receive the gift of the Everlasting Covenant.

And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.Genesis 9:16 KJV

"And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. "Genesis 17:7 KJV

"...how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator."Heb 9:14-16 NKJV

Notice it is the death of the Testator(Jesus) that brings to the sinner the everlasting inheritance, not the death of the sinner.

"And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. "Gal 3:29 KJV

Regards!

[Gerr]

Quote:

I would be interested where you might find biblical evidence of one iota of self-pleasuring as being a gift of God.

Everyone also to whom God has given wealth and possessions and power to enjoy them, and to accept his lot and rejoice in his toil—this is the gift of God. Eccl 5:19 ESV.

And it is a good thing to receive wealth from God and the good health to enjoy it. To enjoy your work and accept your lot in life—this is indeed a gift from God. NLT

Yes, we should make the most of what God gives, both the bounty and the capacity to enjoy it, accepting what’s given and delighting in the work. It’s God’s gift! Message

God answered Solomon, “Because this was in your heart, and you have not asked possessions, wealth, honor, or the life of those who hate you, and have not even asked long life, but have asked wisdom and knowledge for yourself that you may govern my people over whom I have made you king. wisdom and knowledge are granted to you. I will also give you riches, possessions, and honor, such as none of the kings had who were before you, and none after you shall have the like.” 2 Chr 1:11-12 ESV

I perceived that there is nothing better for them than to be joyful and to do good as long as they live;also that everyone should eat and drink and take pleasure in all his toil—this is God’s gift to man. Eccl 3:12-13 ESV

[Gerr]

Quote:

No one disputes that there are different metaphors used in Scripture for the atonement. However, here a couple of questions to consider:

1.Is there a predominant atonement view under which the other metaphors can be organized? (or should they be considered as an eclectic collection; this has been termed the "kaleidoscope" view).

The Atonement by Sacrifice [substitution/propitiation] dominates the OT landscape as I see it. A whole book (Leviticus) is written about it. This is followed by the Covenant model, Ransom/Redemption, Court/Legal, Heart Transplant models. All these concepts are carried into the NT. The Court/Legal view seems to predominate in Romans & Galatians. A whole book (Hebrews) is also devoted to the Atonement-by-Sacrifice in the NT, but Hebrews also carries the Covenant model in chapters 8-10.

Quote:

2.Is the penal substitution view viable?

Man has sinned. He has no remedy to extricate himself from the sentence of death. So a substitute is needed.

Quote:

Regarding the second question, there are those who view the penal substitution view as *the* view, and the other metaphors should be organized under that. That's how most penal advocates view things.

Or one could take the view that the penal idea is one among many.

To me it's one among several. But as I see it, there are two two that predominates - 1) Atonement by Sacrifice via a Substitute & the 2) Court/Legal view.

[Gerr]

Quote:

In either case, is it a viable view?

There are several difficulties with the view:

1.It presents a view which has three parties involved instead of two. To quote from Ty Gibson (from "Shades of Grace"):

Quote:

In this paradigm, a three-party arrangement is evident:

1.The sinner, who has aroused the anger of God.

2.A wrathful God, who needs personal satisfaction that can only be derived from inflicting suffering and imposing death...

3.A third-party victim, who is made to suffer and die as a substitute for the victim.

As Ty points out, there are a number of problems with this view. One is that is makes no legal or moral sense for an innocent third-party victim to suffer the penalty for the wrongdoer.

But that is man's thinking, not God's! If the sinner (guilty party) pays for the consequences of his sin, then he can't be saved!

Quote:

Another is that if such an arrangement could satisfy God,

Since God loves us and is FOR US & who provided the Sacrifice, it can't be God who needs to be satisfied! (Rom 8). But there is an inborn abstract concept in all of us that when a debt is incurred, it must be paid. That wrongs done must be made right. Justice must be done. Hence the demands of the law must be satisfied. Otherwise the devil's (the accuser) that God is unfair/unjust would have merit. As I said in another post, God's dilemma is - how can He be merciful and yet as Judge still uphold the law? The Cross shows that He can be just and merciful while declaring the sinner innocent, otherwise He could by charged with being untruthful.

Quote:

then one would be forced to conclude that God's law and wrath are arbitrary, meaning there is no organic relationship between sin and death. That is, if God's wrath can be appeased by a third-party victim, then it follows there is no real problem with sin, other than the fact that God doesn't want us doing it: His law is arbitrary. Moreover, since we have failed to meet His arbitrary demands, we need to either suffer ourselves, or find someone to suffer in our place: His wrath is arbitrary.

And what do you mean by "arbitrary?" Because in a sense, His commandments ARE arbitrary, we did not vote on them! He hand them down without anyone's say on them. Yet His Laws ARE reasonable. It is because of His laws that the universe runs in order. And it is precisely because of the disregard for these laws that we have disorder and chaos.

Quote:

Quote:

Biblical Christianity proclaims, in extreme contrast to the third-party view of substitution, that God has given Himself as our Substitute, to bear our sin and its inherent, divinely-ordained penalty. Hence there are only two parties involved in the atonement:

1.The sinner, who has aroused in God a painful tension between a holy, rational anger against sin and an equally holy, rational mercy toward the sinner.

2.An infinitely just and infinitely merciful God, who loves us so selflessly that He has chosen to give Himself to suffer and die as our Substitute.

Some very good thoughts here, but I don't think there are just two parties to consider. One must also consider the guilty party who may or may not want to accept the substitute, the devil who wants his pound of flesh and don't want sinners forgiven while he and his followers suffer eternal death. Then there is onlooking universe who are interested in seeing whether the Lord they serve is just or not.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

While it is true, in context this was meant to be an object lesson for Peter to call no man unclean. However, Peter was unaware of that to begin with. So, yes, God does sometimes ask us to do that which our conscience tells us is wrong to do. Our conscience can only be a faithful guide when we are aware of the Word's guidance.

This was a dream. God didn't actually ask Peter to eat unclean meat.

[pnattmbtc]

Excellent again! To me, the experience of Abraham teaches us that God did not require and did not want the death of his Son. It is high time that we blame the one who had been "a murderer from the beginning" for the crucifixion of Jesus."

Great point. It's amazing how God gets the "credit" for that which is Satan's doing. But this is what he's been doing for years, portraying God as doing that which he does. It's a pity he's so successful at it, especially amongst those most adamant that they are followers of God.