Present doctrine of atonement fallacies

[Nic Samojluk]

We had a nice conversation going on the atonement. I sure hope this foolishness stops, or at least gets located to another thread.

[Nic Samojluk]

Now look at the case of a normal discharge. Notice that in this case, although this results in the man being unclean; nevertheless, it lasts only until the evening, and it does not need to be atoned for. This represents a contrast with an abnormal discharge, which makes the man unclean for seven days and must be atoned for.

Quote:

16“‘When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

In a similar fashion, sexual activity made the participants unclean, but there was no requirement for a sin offering nor a need for an atonement.

Quote:

18When a man lies with a woman and there is an emission of semen, both must bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.

The same thing could be said about the normal discharge of blood connected with the monthly period.

Quote:

19“‘When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.

Next we have a reason to be shocked. What follows is hard to comprehend because we do not consider this type of anomaly to be connected with sin nor the need for atonement.

Quote:

25“‘When a woman has a discharge of blood for many days at a time other than her monthly period or has a discharge that continues beyond her period, she will be unclean as long as she has the discharge, just as in the days of her period.

Notice the need for a sin offering and atonement:

Quote:

28“‘When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge.

See my next posting!

[Nic Samojluk]

Now let’s turn to Leviticus 12:

Quote:

1The LORD said to Moses, 2“Say to the Israelites: ‘A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period.

We do not consider having a baby to be connected with spiritual uncleanness. Physical uncleanliness, perhaps. Nurses take care of this, but spiritual or ceremonial uncleanliness, never! Unless, of course, the baby is the result of adultery or fornication

If having a baby within the proper marriage context is not sinful, then why did the Lord require a sin offering and atonement? I have no answer for this. Even Mary, the mother of Jesus, had to go through this ritual following the birth of the Savior.

Quote:

3On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.

And here is another shocker: If the baby was a boy, the woman would be unclean for 33 days, but if it was a baby girl, she would treated as ceremonially unclean for 66 days. Can you explain this? Evidently, there are in the Bible mysteries hard to understand!

Quote:

6“‘When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. 7He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood.

So as you can see, we were not off the subject after all.

[Nic Samojluk]

It's better to appropriate the God given method for dealing with the issue.

[Nic Samojluk]

You cited the following passage written by Ellen White. Are her comments dealing with the normal discharge designed by nature or the abnormal addiction to sex exhibited by certain individuals? Notice what I have highlighted in color:

Quote:

Solemn messages from Heaven cannot forcibly impress the heart that is not fortified against the indulgence of this degrading vice. The sensitive nerves of the brain have lost their healthy tone by morbid excitation to gratify an unnatural desire for sensual indulgence. The brain nerves which communicate with the entire system are the only medium through which Heaven can communicate to man and affect his inmost life. Whatever disturbs the circulation of the electric currents in the nervous system lessens the strength of the vital powers, and the result is a deadening of the sensibilities of the mind. In consideration of these facts, how important that ministers and people who profess godliness should stand forth clear and untainted from this soul-debasing vice! {CG 446.3}

Is the normal discharge of sperm the result of a “soul-debasing vice”? Does normal sexual activity result in the loss of the healthy tone of the brain? Does it cause a morbid excitation to gratify an unnatural desire for sensual indulgence. Does it disturbs the circulation of the electric currents in the nervous system? Does it lessen the strength of the vital powers? Does it result is a deadening of the sensibilities of the mind?

A careful examination of the context suggests that what Mrs. White is talking about is not the normal and healthy use of sex as designed by the Lord, but rather the morbid, unhealthy, addictive, and excessive sensual excitation connected with abnormal sex. Please, do not misapply what she has written on the subject.

[Nic Samojluk]

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.

I have heard stories similar to yours where some individuals have managed to quit the smoking of tobacco, marihuana, and opium cold turkey. Many others have had a totally different experience. Saint Paul asked the Lord to cure him of a certain unspecified malady, but the Lord told him to stop asking him this. Would you say that when we ask for something the Lord is obligated to comply in every circumstance?

Do you believe that nocturnal emissions are sinful? Did you read my comments about what the Bible says about this topic in Leviticus 15? Do you believe that all pleasurable experiences are sinful? Have you thought about asking the Lord to take away from you the pleasure connected with eating nutritious food? Do you believe in the Catholic view of sex? Do you think that sex must always be connected with procreation?

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: fccool

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!

Perhaps what you need is to read the "Songs of Solomon." It may help you understand why God gave us the gift of sexual pleasure.

[Nic Samojluk]

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....

[Nic Samojluk]

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.

Have you noticed that when Adventists preach or write they do cite extrabiblical sourcess? What is wrong with that. When I cite Ellen White, I cite her not on par with the Bible. Her writings represent a "lesser light."

[Nic Samojluk]

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

Great answer. I love it!

[pnattmbtc]

I don't understand the ignoring of the request to please stick with the topic. This was a good topic. Why kill it? If you want to discuss other things, can't you do so elsewhere?

[teresaq]

perhaps there could be more elaboration of the Christus Victor theme? (if i spelled and named it correctly)

[fccool]

Deleted

[fccool]

The reason why masturbation subject is relevant is:

1) God embedded in us certain reflexes and bodily functions.

2) It may seems so Biblically, that God condemns these as being "unclean". The natural menstrual cycle was considered unclean, and if women touched anything that thing would become unclean.

3) Thus we have to deconstruct that mentality that carries over to our age, that certain things of themselves are "unclean", thus making us born "sinful"... thus having no choice but to sin given these "unclean" urges that are default reactions.

4) Thus with such logic, we need God to save us from our own bodies that He has created to be good, because our bodies are sinful. Believe it or not, this is what I was taught in high school that I went to.

I don't believe that women sinned by menstruating, just like men did not sin by discharge. That's where I think the entire enterpretation of certain people goes out to a whole new wild tangent.

There's a difference between SIN and CEREMONIAL UNCLEANNESS. The ceremonies were introduce to teach people about the Holiness of God. Got taught them about His Holiness (not a reference to Pope using certain understanding that we are accustom to.

Even today, we consider human excrement, and bodily fluids "unclean". Even though human urine is a sterilizer, it's still considered unclean in our culture.

It has nothing to do with the idea of being sinful, but rather creates a spark contrast in human understanding what God is really like, and how we are to live.

But switching the topic to a different direction....

What did Christ came to save us from, and how does it relate to the idea of atonement by substitution?

[pnattmbtc]

Going back to your three questions as these relate to the topic. I'd likewise would like to ask you a couple counter-questions:

1) How would you know what would be morally wrong for God?

[pnattmbtc]

perhaps there could be more elaboration of the Christus Victor theme? (if i spelled and named it correctly)

Please look at the following and let me know what you think: (Sorry not to answer the question myself, but 1) very pressed for time; 2)I like how Greg explains this theme)

http://www.gregboyd.org/category/essays/essays-jesus/atonement-essays-jesus-essays/

[fccool]

Quote:

Is God capable of asking us to do certain things that we understand to be immoral?

Yes :)

[pnattmbtc]

What did Christ came to save us from, and how does it relate to the idea of atonement by substitution?

I'd like to make clear that what I take issue with is the idea of penal substitution. I don't think there's a problem with the idea that Christ was a substitute for us; just with the idea that He did so in order to enable God to forgive us (or to vent God's wrath; that sort of thing).

He was a substitute for us in that had He know come and died for us, we would have been lost. Or, to perhaps state this more clearly in terms of the point I'm wishing to communicate, had Christ not come to this earth on our behalf, and live the life He lived which inevitably led to His death (because of evil), we would have inevitably suffered the death which Christ tasted (from Heb. 2:14, IIRC) on our behalf.

At any rate, to address your question, what did Christ come to save us from, one answer that comes to mind is unbelief.

[fccool]

Moving on...

What did Christ came to save us from, and how it does or does not confirm the idea of atonement by substitution?

[fccool]

unbelief.

BINGO!

[pnattmbtc]

f:Is God capable of asking us to do certain things that we understand to be immoral?

p:Yes

It doesn't seem to me God would do so, for the reasons I explained. Did you see my explanation? If not, I could repeat it.

Why do you think God would do so?

[pnattmbtc]

What did Christ came to save us from, and how it does or does not confirm the idea of atonement by substitution?

To answer the second part of this question, understanding "substitution" to mean "penal substitution," it doesn't relate to the first part because penal substitution doesn't solve the problem that's the real issue.

That is, if our problem were an arbitrary, legal one, then penal substitution could solve it. But our problem has to do with ourselves, in particular with how we view God (as well as with how we view other things, such as sin/death/ourselves/God's law; but primarily God), and the solution to reconciliation (aka "atonement") is the revelation of the truth.

[fccool]

Could not agree with you more.

[pnattmbtc]

Did you used to believe penal substitution, fccool? Or you never did?

[Robert]

Do not forget that Ellen White also said:

God never commands us to do anything which we cannot do when empowered by his words. The same power which brought the universe and everything in it into existence is at our disposal when we have the will to obey his commands.

You are confusing OC commands with our ticket to heaven....