The aftermath

[skyblue888]

After the 18 conferences we held with the Evangelicals between 1955 and 1957, Martin, who was one of the Evangelicals who took part in these meetings, wrote,

"Since there is no conceivable doctrinal ground, in the light of verifiable evidence, where the fundamental tenets of the historic Gospel are concerned for refusing that outstretched hand, I for one encourage the extension of our hand which will usher in a new era of understanding and spiritual growth among the Church which is Christ's body." Movement of Destiny, Leroy Froom, p.475.

Martin sums up his seven-year search:

"After an exhaustive examination of the history and theology of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination covering a seven-year period, the last year and a half of which have been spent in top-level conferences with officials (representatives) of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, this writer as a research polemicist has no hesitation whatsoever in stating that those previous positions so widely seized upon by the enemies of Adventism have been totally repudiated by the Seventh-day Adventist denomination for some years. To charge the majority of Adventists today with holding these heretical views is unfair, inaccurate, and decidedly unchristian." p.473.

Heretical views: That Christ had taken upon Himself our sinful flesh and our sanctuary doctrine teaching a final phase of the atonement beginning on the 22nd of October 1844. These two, especially.

In its March 3, 1958 issue, the religious journal, Christianity Today, states:

"The Adventists today are contending vigorously that they are truly evangelical. They appear to want to be so regarded."

Mentioning the book, Questions on Doctrine, it says that this "is the Adventist answer to the question whether it ought to be thought of as a sect or a fellow evangelical denomination."

It states that "the book" is published in an effort to convince the religious world that we are evangelical and one of them!

M.L. Andreason responded:

"This is a most interesting and dangerous situation. As one official who was not in favor of what was being done stated to me: 'We are being sold down the river.' What a sight for Heaven and earth! The church of the living God which has been given the commission to preach the gospel to every creature under heaven and call men to come out of Babylon, is now standing at the door of these churches asking permission to enter and become one of them. How are the mighty fallen!"

There is no way the evangelicals could have said what they have said after these meetings if we had maintained the main pillars of our faith!

What think ye?

sky

[Gail]

The interesting thing is that over the years I have seen speakers from other denominations come out and testify to the truths that we have held. It blew my mind watching Joel Osteen and his clean/unclean food sermon! I have also read recently (unfortunately I can't remember where now) a reference to the heavenly sanctuary in material that wasn't ours. There are many Sabbath-keeping denominations nowadays, too.

I've had it said to me that that book (QOD) should never have happened. There was controversy about it then and now it seems to me that there is more opposition to it than there might have been formerly. I can't say from experience for then, as I wasn't a church member then (I might not even have been born yet!)

I have a hunch that the investigative judgment/2300 days prophecy/sanctuary truth could very well be another one of those doctrines that, like the Sabbath truth, will be accepted and promoted by non-SDAs before Jesus comes.

But if it isn't, so be it. I love that message!

[skyblue888]

Gail, but what difference does that make? did not you and I and all of us join the church after the fact?

sky

[Gerr]

A couple of years ago, I was doing locum tenens work in another city. I was staying at a motel, and one Sunday morning I was eating breakfast and overheard a couple of people who had apparently been attending some relgious seminar. They were excitedly discussing their new found truth about the heavenly sanctuary!!! While many SDAs are questioning or have abandoned this doctrine, many non-SDAs are discovering this truth!!!

[skyblue888]

A couple of years ago, I was doing locum tenens work in another city. I was staying at a motel, and one Sunday morning I was eating breakfast and overheard a couple of people who had apparently been attending some relgious seminar. They were excitedly discussing their new found truth about the heavenly sanctuary!!! While many SDAs are questioning or have abandoned this doctrine, many non-SDAs are discovering this truth!!!

Of course Gerry! The stones are crying! Did not Jesus declare that "the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out"? Who did He say would sit at the table in the Kingdom with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

sky :)

[pnattmbtc]

There is no way the evangelicals could have said what they have said after these meetings if we had maintained the main pillars of our faith!

[skyblue888]

There is no way the evangelicals could have said what they have said after these meetings if we had maintained the main pillars of our faith!

sky

_______________________________________________________

Regarding Christ's taking sinful flesh, there are evangelicals who hold this position. It seems unlikely to me that this would be used as a reason to deny fellowship. However, the heavenly sanctuary issue could be, depending on what that was taken to mean.

pnatt

_______________________________________________________

pnatt, you should know that during these meetings the Evangelicals quoted a statement from Bible Readings For The Home and asked that it be removed: "He lived a sinless life in sinful flesh." To them this statement was an "offending" statement. They said that such teaching was disparaging (bringing reproach upon) the Gospel. To that the leaders of the General Conference responded by stating that those within the church who still adhered to this belief belonged to the "lunatic fringe" and they immediately gave instructions for that statement to be expunged from that book. The revised edition read thus: "Jesus lived a sinless life in the flesh." This is all recorded in Letters To The Churches by Andreason and one should read the chapters of Movement of Destiny dealing with this era, by Leroy Froom, a prominent historian in the church.

sky

__________________________

I thought Andreasen's quote was funny:

This is a most interesting and dangerous situation. As one official who was not in favor of what was being done stated to me: "We are being sold down the river.' What a sight for Heaven and earth! The church of the living God which has been given the commission to preach the gospel to every creature under heaven and call men to come out of Babylon, is now standing at the door of these churches asking permission to enter and become one of them. How are the mighty fallen!" Letters To The Churches, by M.L. Andreason.

pnatt

_________________________________________________

pnatt, what exactly do you think is so funny about that statement??? It was not Andreason who said, "We are being sold down the river," but an official of the General Conference who disagreed with what was being done.

sky

_________________________________________

Some of what came out after this in relation to Christ's human nature and Ellen White's writings was shameful.

pnatt

_________________

Could you elaborate on what you mean here?

thank you

sky

[skyblue888]

However, the heavenly sanctuary issue could be (used to deny us Christian fellowship) depending on what that was taken to mean.

pnatt

_____________________________

As to the atonement, there is not a shadow of doubt that the leaders repudiated this doctrine in these secret meetings. They explained to the Evangelicals that they, like them, believed that the atonement was finished at the cross. When the Evangelicals asked our leaders what Mrs. White meant by statements like "Christ ascended up on High to make atonement for our transgressions," they responded that she only meant that He was applying the benefits of the atonement which was finished at the cross. This seemed to satisfy them for after these declarations, our denomination was recognized as a member of "Christ's body." Up until then, they had looked upon us as an anti-Christian cult!

sky

[JawgeFromJawja]

As to the atonement, there is not a shadow of doubt that the leaders repudiated this doctrine in these secret meetings. They explained to the Evangelicals that they, like them, believed that the atonement was finished at the cross. When the Evangelicals asked our leaders what Mrs. White meant by statements like "Christ ascended up on High to make atonement for our transgressions," they responded that she only meant that He was applying the benefits of the atonement which was finished at the cross. This seemed to satisfy them for after these declarations, our denomination was recognized as a member of "Christ's body." Up until then, they had looked upon us as an anti-Christian cult!

Skyblue88, as a Baptist, but not necessarily an evangelical,I can tell the greatest concern is the total lack of Scripture founding the doctrine.

Shhhh! Let's keep that cult nonsense quiet. Let it die the quiet death it ought to, unheralded and unmoaned. I am being serious here. In my experience, the average non-Adventist Church member has not the vaguest notion about that appellation. And the typical lay Adventists of my circle also have no inkling of such nonsense. Should I have even breathed the idea around my Adventist family in law, I should have required an armed escort from then on, never mind the fact that SDAs profess non-combat status.

Maintaining peaceful co-existence with my family since marriage at age 21 has been, well, an experience. But truly, a growth experience, practically all positive.

But some people!

Jawge.

[skyblue888]

"As to the atonement, there is not a shadow of doubt that the leaders repudiated this doctrine in these secret meetings. They explained to the Evangelicals that they, like them, believed that the atonement was finished at the cross. When the Evangelicals asked our leaders what Mrs. White meant by statements like "Christ ascended up on High to make atonement for our transgressions," they responded that she only meant that He was applying the benefits of the atonement which was finished at the cross. This seemed to satisfy them for after these declarations, our denomination was recognized as a member of "Christ's body." Up until then, they had looked upon us as an anti-Christian cult!

sky

__________________________________________________

Skyblue88, as a Baptist, but not necessarily an evangelical,I can tell the greatest concern is the total lack of Scripture founding the doctrine.

Jawge

__________________________________________________

Jawge, you must be a new member. First time I see your name on this board. You are a Baptist living within an adventist entourage! Wow! interesting. Not all who call themselves "evangelicals" are necessarily evangelicals and not all who call themselves "adventists" are necessarily adventists but Adventists should be truly evangelicals.

As a "Baptist" it is totally expected of you to talk about "the total lack of Scripture founding the doctrine," but it is totally expected from an "Adventist" to know and understand the Scriptures founding this doctrine.

sky

____________________________________________________

Shhhh! Let's keep that cult nonsense quiet. Let it die the quiet death it ought to, unheralded and unmoaned. I am being serious here. In my experience, the average non-Adventist Church member has not the vaguest notion about that appellation. And the typical lay Adventists of my circle also have no inkling of such nonsense. Should I have even breathed the idea around my Adventist family in law, I should have required an armed escort from then on, never mind the fact that SDAs profess non-combat status.

Jawge

______________________________________________________

Thank you for confirming what I have stated in my last post. It is a fact that there are less and less adventists who adhere to the sanctuary doctrine or who are able to explain it from the Scriptures. Christ's death upon the cross was not the atonement itself but the condition for the atonement. In order to make atonement Christ had to be a Priest. Hebrews 8:4 clearly says that while on earth He would not be a priest. So it was not until He ascended up on High and entered into His Priestly ministry that He began to made atonement by pleading the merits of His infinite sacrifice before the Father in our behalf.

Not only that, when He began to make atonement Christ was in the first apartment of the Sanctuary above and this meant that at some time in the future, when the times would be fulfilled, He would pass from the Holy to the Most Holy apartment to begin the final phase of that atonement and that would involve a work of investigative judgment. This took place at the end of the 2,300 day prophecy, on October 22, 1844.

On that day, type met antitype.

The doctrine of a final atonement involving an examination of the guests at the Wedding feast, which takes place in Heaven, can also be found in some of the parables that Jesus spoke, especially in the parable of the Net and in the parable of the Wedding Garment.

So, far from being "nonsense" this teaching is totally Biblical and a most important part of the last-day message to the church and to world.

The foundational Scripture is found in Daniel 8:14 and its explanation by the angel to Daniel is found in chapter 9:23-27.

This teaching is the foundation and central pillar of the Advent Movement. But alas it has been compromised and even repudiated in secret meetings with representatives of the Evangelicals more than five decades ago. Of course since then the church has been maintaining an apparent status-quo as far as the members of the church are concerned. But the wrong has already been done and today we are reaping what was sown, confusion.

Nevertheless, the Lord has said, "I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it."

"Even if all our leading men should refuse light and truth, that door will remain open. The Lord will raise up men who will give the message for this time." Testimonies to Ministers, p.107.

sky

[John317]

as a Baptist, but not necessarily an evangelical,I can tell the greatest concern is the total lack of Scripture founding the doctrine.

In the antitypical system [correction: typical system], was the atonement made and completed at the time the sacrifice was made?

And what is the meaning of atonement?

[skyblue888]

John, you are asking Jawge, right?

sky :)

[John317]

Yes, but you can give your response to it if you like.

[skyblue888]

In the antitypical system, was the atonement made and completed at the time the sacrifice was made?

And what is the meaning of atonement?

John317

____________________________________________________

I am sure you meant to ask, In the "typical system," was the atonement made and completed at the the time the sacrifice was made? Right?

I have no doubt that you already know the answer to that question.

No, in the "typical system," no atonement was made until the blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled beyond the vail of the first apartment of the sanctuary. A final atonement was made on the great day of Atonement at the end of the year to cleanse the sanctuary. The high priest entered the second apartment then.

So in the antitypical system. Jesus could not atone for our transgressions until He ascended up on High to plead the merits of His shed blood before the Father in our behalf.

To "atone" is to "expiate". "Christ is our propitiation through faith in His blood." Rom.3:25.

Since the blood that He shed is of value beyond estimate, so are its merits. The purpose of this atoning for our transgressions, pleading the merits of His shed blood before the Father in our behalf, is that we might be led to accept His merits which it is our privilege to claim, that we might become at one with God.

So, as we present our helpless case before God pleading the merits of the blood shed for us upon Calvary's cross, the Father receives us unto Himself and we become one with God in Christ by the Holy Spirit.

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

In the antitypical system, the final atonement in the sanctuary above began on Oct.22, 1844 according to the prophecy of Daniel 8:14 and as explained in Daniel 9:23-27. At that time Jesus entered the Most Holy apartment of the heavenly sanctuary.

Right?

Back to you John.

sky

[Gail]

Jawge, I would also like to know what you believe the function of the heavenly sanctuary to be as portrayed in Hebrews and Revelation. :)

[Gerr]

Sky: To "atone" is to "expiate". "Christ is our propitiation through faith in His blood." Rom.3:25.

G: I believe "atone" means to cover, so "atonement" means covering up the cause for enmity, thereby effecting "at-one-ment". To "expiate" is from the Latin meaning "to appease". The Scriptures use several different terms to describe the reconciliation of sinners to God. Atonement is just one of them. Other terms are: redemption, propitiation, covenant, justification, grafting, new birth, etc.

[skyblue888]

The dictionary (The Random House College)'s definition of "expiate" is "to atone"

I did mention in my post about the at-one-ment with God by saying that we become at one with God.

Do you feel comfortable thinking the atonement was to "appease" God?

sky

[Gerr]

John:

In the typical system, was the atonement made and completed at the time the sacrifice was made?

G: It seems to me, atonement takes place in stages. In the typical system, there's atonement that takes place when the sinner brings the sacrificial animal at the entrance of the tabernacle. Then there's atonement when the blood is taken into the first apartment (holy place), then another atonement at Yom Kippur.

In the anti-typical service, atonement was declared at the Cross for everyone, individual atonement when one accepts the Lamb as one's sacrifice, another atonement when one's name comes up in judgment & individual sins are blotted out, and the final atonement when the originator of sin perishes in the lake of fire. If a repentant sinner dies in any of the atonement stages, I believe that person is saved.

[skyblue888]

Where in the typical system is it said that atonement is made when the sinner brings the sacrificial victim at the entrance of the tabernacle?

sky

[Gerr]

The dictionary (The Random House College)'s definition of "expiate" is "to atone"

G: The primary meaning of the Heb. kaphar according to Strong's is to cover. Expiate according to the Compact Oxford Dictionary comes from Latin expiare which means to appease.

I did mention in my post about the at-one-ment with God by saying that we become at one with God.

Do you feel comfortable thinking the atonement was to "appease" God?

sky

G: The different terms used in Scripture address the different issues in effecting reconciliation. Sin is odious & odorous; it has to be covered up - atonement. Man sold himself into slavery when he sinned. He had to be bought back - redemption. Sin arouses God's righteous anger - thus the need for appeasement, etc.

[John317]

I agree with you, Gerry. The atonement is not accomplished in a single act. The cross is central for sure, but what Christ is doing today in the heavenly sanctuary is just as essential for our salvation as His work on the cross. His sacrifice on Calvery is sufficent to atone for all sins and is unrepeatable, but it wasn't all that's necessary to save humanity. Humanity wouldn't have been saved if Christ hadn't also been resurrected and become our High Priestly mediator in the heavenly sanctuary.

[skyblue888]

The idea of "appeasing" God comes from paganism, does it not?

sky

[skyblue888]

I agree with you, Gerry. The atonement is not accomplished in a single act. The cross is central for sure, but what Christ is doing today in the heavenly sanctuary is just as essential for our salvation as His work on the cross. His sacrifice on Calvery is sufficent to atone for all sins and is unrepeatable, but it wasn't all that's necessary to save humanity. Humanity wouldn't have been saved if Christ hadn't also been resurrected and become our High Priestly mediator in the heavenly sanctuary.

John317

_______________

Where in the typical system is it said that atonement is made when the sinner brings the sacrificial victim at the entrance of the tabernacle?

sky

[John317]

...I am sure you meant to ask, In the "typical system," was the atonement made and completed at the the time the sacrifice was made? Right? ...

Yes, thank you, sky. I misspoke-- I mean misstyped, or something like that. :-)

[John317]

...Where in the typical system is it said that atonement is made when the sinner brings the sacrificial victim at the entrance of the tabernacle?

Good question. I don't believe the atonement was made when the sinner brought the sacrifice to the tabernacle, but at the time the animal was slain.

Lev. 1: 4--

He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.

Romans 3: 24, 25 shows that Christ's death was an atonement:

.... and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, [25] whom God put forward as a propitiation [or atonement] by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

Also Romans 5: 10--

"For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life."

Significantly, after atonement had been made for the individual sinner throughout the year, another atonement was necessary on the Day of Atonement.