Moderators John317 Posted December 8, 2010 Moderators Posted December 8, 2010 ... Jesus died for my sins. His sacrificial death was completed at Calvary. All definitely true, without question. Hebrews 9:26 ... But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Romans 3:24-26 and [we] are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, [25] whom God put forward as a propitiation 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. [26] It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Romans 5:9-11-- Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. [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. [11] More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted December 8, 2010 Moderators Posted December 8, 2010 The following is taken from Isaac Newton's commentary on the book of Daniel, and gives the reasons that Newton rejected the view that Antiochus fulfilled the prophecy of Daniel 8: 9-12-- Quote: This last horn is by some taken for Antiochus Epiphanes, but not very judiciously. A horn of a Beast is never taken for a single person: it always signifies a new kingdom, and the kingdom of Antiochus was an old one. Antiochus reigned over one fo the four horns, and the little horn was a fifth under its proper kings. This horn was at first a little one, and waxed exceeding great, but so did NOT Antiochus. It is described great above all the former horns, and so was NOT Antiochus. His kingdom on the contrary was weak, and tributary to the Romans, and he did not enlarge it. The horn was a King of fierce countenance, and destroyed wonderfully, and prospered and practiced; that is, he prospered in his practices against the holy people: but Antiochus was frightened out of Egypt by a mere message of the Romans, and afterwards routed and baffled by the Jews. The horn was mighty by another's power, Antiochus acted by his own. The horn stood up against the Prince of the Host of Heaven, the Prince of Princes; and this is the character NOT of Antiochus but of Antichrist. The horn cast down the Sanctuary to the ground, and so did NOT Antiochus; he left it standing. The sanctuary and Host were trampled under foot 2300 days; and in Daniel's prophecies days are put for years: but the profanation of the Temple in the reign of Antiochus did not last for so many natural days. These were to last till the time of the end, till the last end of the indignation against the Jews; and this indignation is not yet at an end. They were to last till the sanctuary which had been cast down should be cleansed, and the sanctuary is not yet cleansed. Source: Sir Isaac Newton's Daniel and the Apocalypse, ed., Sir William Whitla (London: John Murray, 1922), p. 222. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
skyblue888 Posted December 8, 2010 Author Posted December 8, 2010 Jawge: Guys, yer making a simple thing complicated. I can't speak for you, but for my hide-bound Baptist self I can speak. Sky: Yes indeed The Gospel is simple: The MERITS of Christ's sacrifice are SUFFICIENT to present to the Father in our behalf. If we believe this from the heart we believe unto righteousness. (Rom.10:8) All the blessings of the covenant of grace are open to us. It is that simple. So all that is expected of the sinner who has been convicted of his great need is to daily come to God just as he is, sinful, helpless, dependent, trusting wholly in the divine merits of Christ's infinite sacrifice, merits which He pleads before the Father in our behalf. Then the Father accepts the sinner, forgives him his sins, and enables him through the grace of the Holy Spirit to overcome as Jesus overcame. And Jesus makes the final atonement for all who prove faithful unto the end. The final atonement for the living will take place when mission of the Gospel is completed just before probation closes. This is the Gospel in a nutshell. At least this is what I understand it to be. Jawge: First, Mrs. White, being extra-Scriptural, has no more meaning for me than a newspaper blurb. I have read her since age ten, and I find nothing of spiritual value in her writings that cannot be gleaned from a Spirit led reading of The Bible. I do find much in her writings that contradicts Holy Scripture. Now let me preemptively say that I will not initiate a discussion of Mrs. White's writings. If you direct a question to me for my thinking of her writing on a specific point, I will reply with a Scripturally supported, Baptist flavored, weirdo colored, heretic slanted, experience oriented answer. After all, we are all biased, just as we are all foul-mouthed, cheating,promise breaking, lying, stealing, hating, ongoing sinners. Sky: You say that Mrs. White being extra-Scriptural has no more meaning for you than a newspaper blurb. There were a few "extra-biblical" prophets in the Old Testament. Were their writings just as meaningless? They are mentioned in Chronicles. Do you know who they were? There are many things in Mrs. White's writings that cannot be gleaned from simply reading the Bible. God gave her insights that just simply cannot be gleaned simply from reading the Word. She was given the privilege of visiting other worlds where she met good old Enoch who was translated without seeing death. She was taken into the Spirit and heard a speech given by Lucifer to his angels about the Sabbath. She received more than 2,000 visions. Her writings are filled with spiritual insights that cannot be found in any other writings. You say you do find much in her writings that contradicts the Scriptures. I didn't. I found apparent contradictions only just as there are in the Bible. Jawge: Now let me preemptively say that I will not initiate a discussion of Mrs. White's writings. If you direct a question to me for my thinking of her writing on a specific point, I will reply with a Scripturally supported, Baptist flavored, weirdo colored, heretic slanted, experience oriented answer. After all, we are all biased, just as we are all foul-mouthed, cheating,promise breaking, lying, stealing, hating, ongoing sinners. Sky: It is not your intention to initiate a discussion of Mrs. White's writings and yet you do not hesitate to downgrade them to the level of a newspaper blurb! And those of us who hold her writings as the Testimonies of the Spirit of the Lord are supposed to sit quietly at the feet of one whose answers shall be Baptist flavored, weirdo colored, heretic slanted, experienced oriented, and all because after all, we are all biased, just as we are all foul-mouthed, cheating, promise breaking, lying, stealing, hating, ongoing sinners! Is that what you mean when you say that the Gospel is so simple? Jawge: Second, The Gospel is so simple. It is as simple and pure and clean as we are complicated, lying, dirty, nasty filthy sinners. A) I am an ongoing sinner. As a Christian, I don't mean to sin, but my sinful nature wins out. The price for my sin is death. C) Christ died in my place. Sky: So those who accept the pure Gospel are on-going sinners, foul-mouthed, cheating, promise breaking, lying, stealing, hating!!! Sky: No offense to you personally, but if this is the best a Baptist can come up with, I am afraid there won't be any danger for such to be labeled "heretics" for this is the cheap gospel that has been officially embraced by most if not all Christendom. The Bible has identified this gospel for what it is, a lie, Satan's lie. Jawge: God offers His Son's death Gracefully in my place. Reams of paper have been sacrificed in argument against God's Grace, calling it "cheap grace". There is nothing cheap about Jesus' sacrificial death. And there is nothing harder to understand. Sky: True, there is nothing cheap about Christ's sacrificial death anymore than there is anything cheap about His grace for His grace is "exceedingly abundant with faith and love" (1 Tim.1:14) and love is the light and the life of God and the life of God in the soul can enable the sinner to cease from sin. Anything short of that is not the "true grace of God." (2 Peter 5:12) Jawge: Now for a point by point comment on this posting: Sky: I am not saying anything. I am only quoting what Mrs. White said the Lord told her about Crozier's article. You do not believe what the Lord told her? Crozier did not say that no atonement took place before the cleansing of the sanctuary but that no atonement took place at the cross and he explains this by looking at the type and then the Lord said to Mrs. White that Crozier stated the truth. Read the six points he made again. Gerry: Jesus died for my sins. His sacrificial death was completed at Calvary. Sky: Yes He died for our sins. His sacrificial death was full and complete. No disagreement with that whatsoever. He died in our place under the condemnation of our sins so that He could present Himself before the Father, once His sacrifice would have been approved, as our Substitute and Surety. Then by pleading the merits of His shed blood in our behalf He is making atonement for our sins. Crozier: "But again, they say that the atonement was made and finished on Calvary, when the Lamb of God expired. So men have taught us, and so the churches and world believe; but it is none the more true or sacred on that account, if unsupported by Divine authority. Perhaps few or none who hold that opinion have ever tested the foundation on which it rests. Gerry: I don't have the whole article, but your quote IN NO WAY implies to me that NO ATONEMENT took place at the Cross. What he doesn't believe in is the "atonement was made and finished on Calvary", meaning there was nothing more to be done. If you look at the typical services, as I said before, it appears to me that atonement was done in stages. I believe the same is true in the antityical realities. In the typical, a sinner brings the lamb at the entrance. He confesses his sins, presents the animal as his substitute, slays it, and is atoned for and forgiven. In the antitypical, the sinner repents, confesses his sins, accepts Christ as his Savior and is justified. That's just the beginning of the journey in our walk with God. Each day in the sanctification process, the life of the sinner becomes more and more AT-ONE with the character of the divine. Jawge: The Atonement done in stages? What could be more simple than the simple statement, "Jesus died for my sins." Sky: Yes, of course, He died for our sins. It was a sacrificial death but not the atonement itself. The atonement took place in Heaven. In type, the atonement was the work of the priest typifying Christ's priestly ministry in the sanctuary above. It was not enough that the sinner had slain the lamb. No atonement was made until the priest took the blood and sprinkled it according to the sanctuary laws, typifying the intercession of Christ in the sanctuary above after His ascension pleading the merits of His shed blood before the Father in our behalf. First in the holy place and then in the most holy place. Crozier: 1. If the atonement was made on Calvary, by whom was it made? The making of the atonement is the work of a Priest, but who officiated on Calvary?--Roman soldiers and wicked Jews. Crozier: 2. The slaying of the victim was not making the atonement; the sinner slew the victim, Leviticus 4:1-4,13-15, etc., after that the Priest took the blood and made the atonement. Leviticus 4:5-12, 16-21. Jawge: The atonement --- by whom was it made? This gets the atonement confused with the one doing the ceremony about the atonement. In the Old Covenant, God accepted the sacrifice of an animal as atonement for sin. The ceremony of the priest was not the atonement. God provided the atonement in accepting the sacrificial death of the animal. The priest had nothing to do with the atonement other than to help the sinner celebrate the process. Sky: Who says that in the Old Covenant God accepted the sacrifice of an animal as atonement for sin? Upon what authority can we say that the work of the priest had nothing to do with the atonement? The sacrificial death was not the atonement itself. It was the condition for the atonement. This the book of Leviticus teaches clearly. The Scriptures to that effect have already been quoted. See Crozier's article. Crozier: 3. Christ was appointed High Priest to make the atonement, and He certainly could not have acted in that capacity till after His resurrection, and we have no record of His doing any thing on earth after His resurrection, which could be called the atonement. Jawge: This is all so needlessly complicated. Old Covenant or New Covenant, we are redeemed, sanctified, through faith in the Grace of God. Sky: Not exactly. We are not redeemed through faith in the grace of God but through faith in the merits of Christ. Faith in the merits of Christ, merits which He pleads before the Father in our behalf, is what brings the grace of God into the life and this grace is made manifest by obedience to all the commandments of God. Crozier: 4. The atonement was made in the Sanctuary, but Calvary was not such a place. Jawge: Not so. The atonement was a gift of God, symbolized by the sacrifice, and celebrated in the Sanctuary. Jesus' sacrificial death occurred at Calvary. Sky: The priests on earth did not bother with the blood of Christ to make atonement with it. Thats for sure. It was not until Jesus entered the holy place of the heavenly sanctuary that He began the atonement proper. Gerry: No sanctuary for the saints I mentioned above either. Sky: No sanctuary for the saints? That is certainly not what Hebrews 8 and 9 teach. Crozier: 5. He could not according to Hebrews 8:4 make atonement while on earth. "If He were on earth, He should not be a Priest." The Levitical was the earthly priesthood; the Divine Priesthood, the heavenly. Jesus didmake the atoning sacrifice while on earth. Sky: Yes but the atoning sacrifice is not the atonement itself. His death upon the cross was the condition for the atonement. The sacrifice was full and complete and once it was approved of the Father after Christ's ascension, Christ began the atonement by pleading the merits of that sacrifice before the Father in our behalf. Jawge: You are confusing the role of the one making the sacrifice with the one officiating the atonement of the sacrifice. Sky: There was no one to "officiate" or to make the atonement at the cross. The Victim had been offered and Christ would not enter His priestly ministry to make atonement with the merits of His own blood until after His ascension. Jawge: Paul, in Hebrews, (? the author of Hebrews - to me that authorship hardly matters) is relating the sacrificial death of Jesus to Hebrews, to Jews, in term they can relate to. Sky: In terms they can relate to and we cannot!!! Crozier: 6. Therefore, He did not begin the work of making atonement, whatever the nature of that work may be, till after His ascension, when by His own blood He entered the heavenly sanctuary for us." Crozier, Day-Star Extra for February 7, 1846, pages 40,41. Sky: This, then is the "true light", which the Lord showed Sister White in vision, had His approval, and which she felt fully authorized to recommend to every saint. Only as we downgrade Sister White can we reject this testimony of hers. Jawge: Whatever Sr. White said notwithstanding, Jesus died for our sins. It seems so simple to me. There is no need to get Jesus atoning death mixed up with Jewish ceremony and ritual. To do so has no scriptural basis. Sky: This would be a confession that we do not understand that the typical priesthood in the earthly sanctuary was a figure of Christ's priestly ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. Sky: In the light of the above, we have no choice but to aknowledge that what Crozier said is truth, light proceeding from the throne of God. G: I believe that Crozier is correct in saying that atonement was not made and FINISHED at the Cross. That is far from saying that NO atonement took place at all. Our Lord is still making atonement in the heavenly sanctuary. And the END of the atonement process will NOT take place until the WHOLE universe is truly AT-ONE-MENT once again. Sky: Crozier's main point is to show that no atonement took place at Calvary. So Gerry, how can you make such a statement as you have just made? Sky: Crozier stated that there was no atonement made at the cross. Period. He explained this in six points and Mrs. White said that the Lord showed her that it was the true light. If you choose not to believe this, fine. It's up to you Gerry. Jawge: It matters not what multiple authors said or say about salvation. Jesus died for our sins - it's no more simple and no more complicated than that. Sky: By dying for our sins, He fulfilled the condition that qualified Him to be our priest to make atonement for us. Jawge: One more time: Crozier: 1. [color:#330033]If the atonement was made on Calvary, by whom was it made? Jawge: The atonement was made by Jesus, with his sacrificial death. And, Jesus is my priest, my mediator, with God. Crozier: The making of the atonement is the work of a Priest, but who officiated on Calvary?--Roman soldiers and wicked Jews. Jawge: The making of the atonement was Jesus, in his sacrificial death. The atonement was celebrated by a priest. Jesus Himself officiates for us, that is, He is the priest who celebrates His atoning death with us. Crozier: 2. The slaying of the victim was not making the atonement; the sinner slew the victim, Leviticus 4:1-4,13-15, etc., after that the Priest took the blood and made the atonement. Leviticus 4:5-12, 16-21. Jawge: No, the priest did not make the atonement. The animal was the sin offering made to God. God made the atonement. The priest officiated, helped celebrate, the atonement. Crozier: 3. Christ was appointed High Priest to make the atonement, and He certainly could not have acted in that capacity till after His resurrection, and we have no record of His doing any thing on earth after His resurrection, which could be called the atonement. Jawge: You are here confusing Jesus' two offices, that of the sacrificial atonement for our sins, and that of being our high priest. His function as high priest was used in Hebrews as an analogy that Jews could relate to. Sky: This is from Crozier's article. Crozier: 4. The atonement was made in the Sanctuary, but Calvary was not such a place. Jawge: The Sanctuary was the site of sacrifice in the Old Testament. And Calvary WAS the site of Jesus' sacrificial death. Sky: Sacrificial death and atonement are not the same. They don't happen at the same time in type or in antitype. Crozier: 5. He could not according to Hebrews 8:4 make atonement while on earth. "If He were on earth, He should not be a Priest." The Levitical was the earthly priesthood; the Divine Priesthood, the heavenly. Jawge: Just one question here - did Jesus die for our sins while on earth? Almost certainly you must answer yes. Jesus made that atoning sacrifice at the end of his life on earth. His acting as our priest is only a symbolic statement. Sky: No, it is not a mere symbolic statement. Unless the priest took the blood of the victim and had sprinkled it in the holy place, there was no atonement made yet. Crozier: 6. Therefore, He did not begin the work of making atonement, whatever the nature of that work may be, till after His ascension, when by His own blood He entered the heavenly sanctuary for us." Crozier, Day-Star Extra for February 7, 1846, pages 40,41 Jawge: I disagree, but it does not matter to God whether you agree that the atoning death (sacrifice) was made when Jesus was on earth or not. All that matters for your salvation is your trust, your faith in the Grace of God to accept His atonement as provided by God. Sky: You may disagree. You are perfectly entitled to disagree. Again our salvation hangs solely upon our trusting in the merits of a crucified and risen Saviour. This is the only way the sinner can receive the grace of God which can make him more than a conqueror over all his inherited and cultivated tendencies to evil and to impress Christ's character upon him. Rom.8:37. Christ died for our sins and since His ascension He has been making atonement by pleading the merits of His shed blood for our transgressions claiming the gift of the Spirit that He may pour it upon us, that we may be enabled to keep all the commandments of God. sky Quote "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
Members rudywoofs (Pam) Posted December 8, 2010 Members Posted December 8, 2010 If absolutely no atonement was made at the cross, why did Jesus tell the thief on the cross next to Him that he would be with Jesus in Paradise? Was that due to the sacrificial passover lamb or to the sacrifice of Jesus? Or was Jesus being preemptive in His statement to the thief? Quote Pam      Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup. If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony. Funny, isn't it, how we accept Grace for ourselves and demand justice for others?
Moderators John317 Posted December 8, 2010 Moderators Posted December 8, 2010 Again our salvation hangs solely upon our trusting in the merits of a crucified and risen Saviour. This is the only way the sinner can receive the grace of God which can make him more than a conqueror over all his inherited and cultivated tendencies to evil and to impress Christ's character upon him. Rom.8:37. Christ died for our sins and since His ascension He has been making atonement by pleading the merits of His shed blood for our transgressions claiming the gift of the Spirit that He may pour it upon us, that we may be enabled to keep all the commandments of God. This is the central teaching of the Three Angels Messages. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
skyblue888 Posted December 8, 2010 Author Posted December 8, 2010 I will answer you by another question: If the atonement was made on the cross, why would there be any need for any further atonement? If the atonement was made on the cross, why teach about a final atonement beginning on the 22nd of October 1844? Quote "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
skyblue888 Posted December 8, 2010 Author Posted December 8, 2010 Quote "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
Moderators John317 Posted December 8, 2010 Moderators Posted December 8, 2010 Ellen White on atonement at the cross: The sacrifice of Christ as atonement for sin is the great truth around which all other truths cluster.--Gospel Workers, p. 315. {7ABC 457.1} It [the cross] is the central pillar on which hangs the far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory which is for those who accept that cross. Under and around the cross of Christ, that immortal pillar, sin shall never revive, nor error obtain control.--Letter 124, 1900. {7ABC 457.2} The Sacrifice of Christ as an atonement for sin is the great truth around which all other truths cluster. In order to be rightly understood and appreciated, every truth in the Word of God, from Genesis to Revelation, must be studied in the light that streams from the cross of Calvary. I present before you the great, grand monument of mercy and regeneration, salvation and redemption,--the Son of God uplifted on the cross. This is to be the foundation of every discourse given by our ministers.--Gospel Workers, p. 315. {7ABC 457.3} The cross of Calvary challenges, and will finally vanquish every earthly and Hellish power. In the cross all influence centers, and from it all influence goes forth. It is the great center of attraction; for on it Christ gave up His life for the human race. This sacrifice was offered for the purpose of restoring man to his original perfection; yea, more. It was offered to give him an entire transformation of character, making him more than a conqueror. . . . {7ABC 457.4} If the cross does not find an influence in its favor, it creates an influence. Through generation succeeding generation, the truth for this time is revealed as present truth. Christ on the cross was the medium whereby mercy and truth met together, and righteousness (458) and peace kissed each other. This is the means that is to move the world.-- Manuscript 56, 1899. {7ABC 457.5} There is one great central truth to be kept ever before the mind in the searching of the Scriptures--Christ and Him crucified. Every other truth is invested with influence and power corresponding to its relation to this theme. It is only in the light of the cross that we can discern the exalted character of the law of God. The soul palsied by sin can be endowed with life only through the work wrought out upon the cross by the Author of our salvation.--Manuscript 31, 1890. {7ABC 458.1} Hanging upon the cross Christ was the gospel. . . . This is our message, our argument, our doctrine, our warning to the impenitent, our encouragement for the sorrowing, the hope for every believer. If we can awaken an interest in men's minds that will cause them to fix their eyes on Christ, we may step aside, and ask them only to continue to fix their eyes upon the Lamb of God.-- Manuscript 49, 1898. {7ABC 458.2} Gather up the strongest affirmative statements regarding the atonement made by Christ for the sins of the world. Show the necessity for this atonement.--Evangelism, p. 187. {7ABC 458.3} The fact that the companions of Christ in His crucifixion were placed the one on His right hand and the other on His left is a significant one; His cross is placed in the very center of the world . --Manuscript 52, 1897. {7ABC 458.4} Christ and Him crucified, is the message God would have His servants sound through the length and breadth of the world. The law and the gospel will then be presented as a perfect whole.-- The Review and Herald, Sept. 29, 1896. {7ABC 458.5} Never should a sermon be preached, or Bible instruction in any line be given, without pointing the hearers to "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." John 1:29. Every true doctrine makes Christ the center, every precept receives force from His words.--Testimonies, vol. 6, p. 54. {7ABC 458.6} To remove the cross from the Christian would be like blotting out the sun from the sky. The cross brings us near to God, reconciling us to Him. . . . Without the cross, man could have no union with the Father. On it depends our every hope.--The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 209, 210. {7ABC 458.7} The study of the incarnation of Christ, His atoning sacrifice, and mediatorial work, will employ the mind of the diligent student as long as time shall last.--Gospel Workers, p. 251. (459) {7ABC 458.8} Christ crucified for our sins, Christ risen from the dead, Christ ascended on high, is the science of salvation that we are to learn and to teach.--Testimonies, vol. 8, p. 287. {7ABC 459.1} No discourse should ever be presented without presenting Christ and Him crucified as the foundation of the gospel.--Ibid., vol. 4, p. 394. {7ABC 459.2} We must become exponents of the efficacy of the blood of Christ, by which our own sins have been forgiven.--Ibid., vol. 6, p. 82. {7ABC 459.3} Science is too limited to comprehend the atonement; the mysterious and wonderful plan of redemption is so far-reaching that philosophy can not explain it; it will ever remain a mystery that the most profound reason can not fathom. If it could be explained by finite wisdom, it would lose its sacredness and dignity. It is a mystery that One equal with the eternal Father should so abase Himself as to suffer the cruel death of the cross to ransom man; and it is a mystery that God so loved the world as to permit His son to make this great sacrifice.--The Signs of the Times, Oct. 24, 1906. {7ABC 459.4} It is Satan's studied purpose to keep souls from believing in Christ as their only hope; for the blood of Christ that cleanseth from all sin is efficacious in behalf of those only who believe in its merit.--Gospel Workers, p. 162. {7ABC 459.5} II. Complete Sacrificial Atonement Made on Cross He [Christ] planted the cross between Heaven and earth, and when the Father beheld the sacrifice of His Son, He bowed before it in recognition of its perfection. "It is enough," He said. "The Atonement is complete."--The Review and Herald, Sept. 24, 1901. {7ABC 459.6} Type met antitype in the death of Christ, the Lamb slain for the sins of the world. Our great High Priest has made the only sacrifice that is of any value in our salvation. When He offered Himself on the cross, a perfect atonement was made for the sins of the people. We are now standing in the outer court, waiting and looking for that blessed hope, the glorious appearing of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.--The Signs of the Times, June 28, 1899. {7ABC 459.7} Our great High Priest completed the sacrificial offering of Himself when He suffered without the gate. Then a perfect atonement was made for the sins of the people. Jesus is our Advocate, our High Priest, our Intercessor. Our present position therefore is (460) like that of the Israelites, standing in the outer court, waiting and looking for that blessed hope, the glorious appearing of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.--Manuscript 128, 1897. {7ABC 459.8} The time had come for the universe of Heaven to accept their King. Angels, cherubim and seraphim, would now stand in view of the cross. . . . The Father accepts the Son. No language could convey the rejoicing of Heaven or God's expression of satisfaction and delight in His only begotten Son as He saw the completion of the atonement.--The Signs of the Times, Aug. 16, 1899. {7ABC 460.1} The Father demonstrates His infinite love for Christ, who paid our ransom with His blood, by receiving and welcoming Christ's friends as His friends. He is satisfied with the atonement made. He is glorified by the incarnation, the life, death, and mediation of His Son.--Testimonies, vol. 6, p. 364. {7ABC 460.2} The Father gave all honor to the Son, seating Him at His right hand, far above all principalities and power. He expressed His great joy and delight in receiving the Crucified One and crowning Him with glory and honor. And all the favors He has shown to His Son in His acceptance of the great atonement are shown to His people. . . . God loves them as He loves His son. . . . The seal of Heaven has been affixed to Christ's atonement. His sacrifice is in every way satisfactory.--The Signs of the Times, Aug. 16, 1899. {7ABC 460.3} The sacrifice of Christ is sufficient; He made a whole, efficacious offering to God; the human effort without the merit of Christ, is worthless.--The Review and Herald, Aug. 19, 1890 (March 24, 1896). {7ABC 460.4} As the sacrifice in our behalf was complete, so our restoration from the defilement of sin is to be complete.--The Ministry of Healing, p. 451. {7ABC 460.5} His death on the cross of Calvary was the climax of His humiliation. His work as a redeemer is beyond finite conception. Only those who have died to self, whose lives are hid with Christ in God, can have any conception of the completeness of the offering made to save the fallen race.--Letter 196, 1901. {7ABC 460.6} III. Incarnation Prerequisite to Atoning Sacrifice Christ has purchased the world by making a ransom for it, by taking human nature. He was not only the offering, but He Himself was the Offerer. He clothed His divinity with humanity, and voluntarily took upon Him human nature, making it possible to offer Himself as a ransom.--Manuscript 92, 1899. (461) {7ABC 460.7} Not one of the angels could have become surety for the human race: their life is God's; they could not surrender it. The angels all wear the yoke of obedience. They are the appointed messengers of Him who is the commander of all Heaven. But Christ is equal with God, infinite and omnipotent. He could pay the ransom for man's freedom. He is the eternal, self-existing Son, on whom no yoke had come; and when God asked, "whom shall I send?" He could reply, "Here am I; send me." He could pledge Himself to become man's surety; for He could say that which the highest angel could not say,--I have power over My own life, "power to lay it down, and . . . power to take it again."--The Youth's Instructor, June 21, 1900. {7ABC 461.1} Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted December 8, 2010 Moderators Posted December 8, 2010 Man could not atone for man. His sinful, fallen condition would constitute him an imperfect offering, an atoning sacrifice of less value than Adam before his fall. God made man perfect and upright, and after his transgression there could be no sacrifice acceptable to God for him, unless the offering made should in value be superior to man as He was in his state of perfection and innocency. {7ABC 461.2} The divine Son of God was the only sacrifice of sufficient value to fully satisfy the claims of God's perfect law. The angels were sinless, but of less value than the law of God. They were amenable to law. They were messengers to do the will of Christ, and before him to bow. They were created beings, and probationers. Upon Christ no requirements were laid. He had power to lay down his life, and to take it again. No obligation was laid upon him to undertake the work of atonement. It was a voluntary sacrifice that He made. His life was of sufficient value to rescue man from his fallen condition.--The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 2 (1877 ed.), pp. 9, 10. {7ABC 461.3} IV. Spotless Christ Was Perfect Offering Christ could not have done this work had He not been personally spotless. Only One who was Himself perfection could be at once the sin bearer and the sin pardoner. He stands before the congregation of His redeemed as their sin-burdened, sin-stained surety, but it is their sins He is bearing. All through His life of humiliation and suffering, from the time that He was born an infant in Bethlehem till He hung on the cross of Calvary, and cried in a voice that shook the universe, "It is finished," the Saviour was pure and spotless.--Manuscript 165, 1899. {7ABC 461.4} Christ was without sin, else His life in human flesh and His (462) death on the cross would have been of no more value in procuring grace for the sinner than the death of any other man. While He took upon Him humanity, it was a life taken into union with Deity. He could lay down His life as priest and also victim. He possessed in Himself power to lay it down and take it up again. He offered Himself without spot to God.--Manuscript 92, 1899. {7ABC 461.5} When He uttered the cry "It is finished," Christ knew that the battle was won. As a moral conqueror, He planted His banner on the eternal heights. Was there not joy among the angels? Not a son, not a daughter of Adam, but could now lay hold on the merits of the spotless Son of God, and say, Christ has died for me. He is my Saviour.--Manuscript 111, 1897. {7ABC 462.1} As the sinbearer, and priest and representative of man before God, He [Christ] entered into the life of humanity, bearing our flesh and blood. The life is in the living, vital current of blood, which blood was given for the life of the world. Christ made a full atonement, giving His life as a ransom for us. He was born without a taint of sin, but came into the world in like manner as the human family. He did not have a mere semblance of a body, but He took human nature, participating in the life of humanity. According to the law Christ Himself gave, the forfeited inheritance was ransomed by the nearest of kin. Jesus Christ laid off His royal robe, His kingly crown, and clothed His divinity with humanity, in order to become a substitute and surety for humanity, that dying in humanity He might by His death destroy him who had the power of death. He could not have done this as God, but by coming as man Christ could die. By death He overcame death. The death of Christ bore to the death him who had the power of death, and opened the gates of the tomb for all who receive Him as their personal Saviour.--Letter 97, 1898. {7ABC 462.2} V. Guilt and Punishment Transferred to Substitute In dying upon the cross, He transferred the guilt from the person of the transgressor to that of the divine Substitute, through faith in Him as his personal Redeemer. The sins of a guilty world, which in figure are represented as "red as crimson," were imputed to the divine Surety.--Manuscript 84a, 1897. {7ABC 462.3} The holy Son of God has no sins or griefs of His own to bear: He was bearing the griefs of others; for on Him was laid the iniquity of us all. Through divine sympathy He connects Himself with man, and as the representative of the race He submits to be (463) treated as a transgressor. He looks into the abyss of woe opened for us by our sins, and proposes to bridge the gulf of man's separation from God.--Bible Echo and Signs of the Times, Aug. 1, 1892. {7ABC 462.4} He was overwhelmed with horror at the fearful work that sin had wrought. His burden of guilt, because of man's transgression of the Father's law, was so great that human nature was inadequate to bear it. The sufferings of martyrs can bear no comparison with the agony of Christ. The divine presence was with them in their sufferings; but the Father's face was hidden from His dear Son.--Ibid. {7ABC 463.1} In the Garden of Gethsemane, Christ suffered in man's stead, and the human nature of the Son of God staggered under the terrible horror of the guilt of sin. . . . {7ABC 463.2} The power that inflicted retributive justice upon man's substitute and surety, was the power that sustained and upheld the suffering One under the tremendous weight of wrath that would have fallen upon a sinful world. Christ was suffering the death that was pronounced upon the transgressors of God's law.--Manuscript 35, 1895. {7ABC 463.3} What sustained the Son of God in His betrayal and trial? He saw of the travail of His soul and was satisfied. He caught a view of the expanse of eternity and saw the happiness of those who through His humiliation should receive pardon and everlasting life. He was wounded for their transgressions, bruised for their iniquities. The chastisement of their peace was upon Him, and with His stripes they were healed. His ear caught the shout of the redeemed. He heard the ransomed ones singing the song of Moses and the Lamb.--Testimonies, vol. 8, pp. 43, 44. {7ABC 463.4} VI. Christ Both Sacrificial Offering and Officiating Priest The infinite sufficiency of Christ is demonstrated by His bearing the sins of the whole world. He occupies the double position of offerer and of offering, of priest and of victim. He was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners. "The prince of this world cometh," He declares, "and findeth nothing in Me." He was a Lamb without blemish, and without spot.--Letter 192, 1906. {7ABC 463.5} As the high priest laid aside his gorgeous pontifical robes, and officiated in the white linen dress of a common priest, so Christ emptied Himself, and took the form of a servant, and offered the sacrifice, Himself the priest, Himself the victim.--The Southern Watchman, Aug. 6, 1903. (464) {7ABC 463.6} VII. The Cross Central in the Atonement The cross must occupy the central place because it is the means of man's atonement and because of the influence it exerts on every part of the divine government.--Testimonies, vol. 6, p. 236. {7ABC 464.1} The atonement of Christ is not a mere skillful way to have our sins pardoned; it is a divine remedy for the cure of transgression and the restoration of spiritual health. It is the heaven-ordained means by which the righteousness of Christ may be not only upon us, but in our hearts and characters.--Letter 406, 1906. {7ABC 464.2} Without shedding of blood there is no remission for sin. He must suffer the agony of a public death on the cross, that witness of it might be borne without the shadow of a doubt.--Manuscript 101, 1897. {7ABC 464.3} Adam listened to the words of the tempter, and yielding to his insinuations, fell into sin. Why was not the death penalty at once enforced in his case?--Because a ransom was found. God's only begotten Son volunteered to take the sin of man upon Himself, and to make an atonement for the fallen race. There could have been no pardon for sin had this atonement not been made. Had God pardoned Adam's sin without an atonement, sin would have been immortalized, and would have been perpetuated with a boldness that would have been without restraint.--The Review and Herald, April 23, 1901. {7ABC 464.4} In the councils of heaven the cross was ordained as the means of atonement. This was to be God's means of winning men to Him. Christ came to this earth to show that in humanity He could keep the holy law of God.--Manuscript 165, 1899. {7ABC 464.5} Christ gave Himself an atoning sacrifice for the saving of a lost world.--Testimonies, vol. 8, p. 208. {7ABC 464.6} VIII. Atoning Provisions Embrace All Mankind Christ's atonement includes the whole human family. No one, high or low, rich or poor, free or bond, has been left out of the plan of redemption.--Letter 106, 1900. {7ABC 464.7} Christ suffered without the gates of Jerusalem, for Calvary was outside the city walls. This was to show that He died, not for the Hebrews alone, but for all mankind. He proclaims to a fallen world that He is their Redeemer, and urges them to accept the salvation He offers.--The Watchman, Sept. 4, 1906. {7ABC 464.8} As the high priest sprinkled the warm blood upon the mercy-seat while the fragrant cloud of incense ascended before God, so, (465) while we confess our sins and plead the efficacy of Christ's atoning blood, our prayers are to ascend to heaven, fragrant with the merits of our Saviour's character. Notwithstanding our unworthiness, we are to remember that there is One who can take away sin, and who is willing and anxious to save the sinner. With His own blood He paid the penalty for all wrong-doers.--The Review and Herald, Sept. 29, 1896. {7ABC 464.9} Jesus refused [after the resurrection] to receive the homage of His people until He had the assurance that His sacrifice was accepted by the Father. He ascended to the heavenly courts, and from God Himself heard the assurance that His atonement for the sins of men had been ample, that through His blood all might gain eternal life.--The Desire of Ages, p. 790. {7ABC 465.1} The sins of the people were transferred in figure to the officiating priest, who was a mediator for the people. The priest could not himself become an offering for sin, and make an atonement with his life, for he was also a sinner. Therefore, instead of suffering death himself, he killed a lamb without blemish; the penalty of sin was transferred to the innocent beast, which thus became his immediate substitute, and typified the perfect offering of Jesus Christ. Through the blood of this victim, man looked forward by faith to the blood of Christ which would atone for the sins of the world.--The Signs of the Times, March 14, 1878. {7ABC 465.2} IX. Manifold Results of the Atonement The atonement of Christ sealed forever the everlasting covenant of grace. It was the fulfilling of every condition upon which God suspended the free communication of grace to the human family. Every barrier was then broken down which intercepted the freest fulness of the exercise of grace, mercy, peace and love to the most guilty of Adam's race.--Manuscript 92, 1899. {7ABC 465.3} Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted December 8, 2010 Moderators Posted December 8, 2010 In our behalf He died on the cross of Calvary. He has paid the price. Justice is satisfied. Those who believe in Christ, those who realize that they are sinners, and that as sinners they must confess their sins, will receive pardon full and free.--Letter 52, 1906. {7ABC 465.4} The atoning sacrifice seen through faith brings peace and comfort and hope to the trembling soul weighed down beneath the sense of guilt. The law of God is the detector of sin, and as the sinner is drawn to the dying Christ, he sees the grievous character of sin, and repents and lays hold on the remedy, the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world.--The Review and Herald, Sept. 2, 1890. {7ABC 466.1} "And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die." This is the crisis of the world. If I become the propitiation for the world, it will be lighted up. The defaced image of God would be reproduced and restored, and a family of believing saints will finally inhabit the heavenly home. This is the result of the crucifixion of Christ and the restoration of the world.--Manuscript 33, 1897. {7ABC 467.1} Our ransom has been paid by our Saviour. No one need be enslaved by Satan. Christ stands before us as our divine example, our all powerful Helper. We have been bought with a price that it is impossible to compute. Who can measure the goodness and mercy of redeeming love?--Manuscript 76, 1903. {7ABC 467.2} God testified to the great work of atonement in reconciling the world to Himself, by giving Christ's followers a true understanding of the kingdom which He was establishing upon the earth, the foundation of which His own hand had laid. {7ABC 467.3} The Father gave all honor to His Son, seating Him at His right hand, far above all principalities and power. He expressed His great joy and delight in receiving the Crucified One, and crowning Him with glory and honor. And all the favors He has shown to His Son in His acceptance of the great atonement are shown to His people. Those who have united their interests in love with Christ are accepted in the Beloved. They suffer with Christ, and His glorification is of great interest to them, because they are accepted in Him. God loves them as he loves his Son.--The Signs of the Times, Aug. 16, 1899. {7ABC 467.4} X. Righteousness Provided Through Atonement It was evident to him that the law did not abate one jot of its justice, but through the atoning sacrifice, through the imputed righteousness of Christ, the repentant sinner stands justified before the law. {7ABC 467.5} Christ bore the penalty that would have fallen upon the transgressor; and through faith the helpless, hopeless sinner becomes a partaker of the divine nature, escaping the corruption that is in the world through lust. Christ imputes His perfection and righteousness to the believing sinner when he does not continue in sin, but turns from transgression to obedience of the commandments.-- The Review and Herald, May 23, 1899. (468) {7ABC 467.6} The only One who could with hope approach God in humanity was the only begotten Son of God. That sinful, repentant human beings might be received by the Father, and clothed with the robe of righteousness, Christ came to the earth, and made an offering of such value that he redeemed the race. Through the sacrifice made on Calvary is offered to everyone the sanctification of grace. --Letter 67, 1902. {7ABC 468.1} It is only through faith in Christ that sinners may have the righteousness of Christ imputed unto them, and that they may be "made the righteousness of God in him." Our sins were laid on Christ, punished in Christ, put away by Christ, in order that his righteousness might be imputed to us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Although sin was charged to His account on our behalf, yet He remained perfectly sinless.--The Signs of the Times, May 30, 1895. {7ABC 468.2} The Lord made a full and complete sacrifice upon the cross, the shameful cross, that men might be complete in the great and precious gift of His righteousness. We have God's pledge that He will bind men closely to His great heart of infinite love in the bonds of the new covenant of grace. All who will give up their hope of paying for their salvation, or earning it, and will come to Jesus just as they are, unworthy, sinful, and fall upon His merits, holding in their plea the pledged word of God to pardon the transgressor of His law, confessing their sins and seeking pardon, will find full and free salvation.--Letter 148, 1897. {7ABC 468.3} XI. Redemptive Price Completely Paid on Calvary The ransom paid by Christ--the atonement on the cross--is ever before them.--Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 190. {7ABC 468.4} On the cross of Calvary He paid the redemption price of the race. And thus He gained the right to rescue the captives from the grasp of the great deceiver, who by a lie framed against the government of God, caused the fall of man, and who thus forfeited all claim to be called a loyal subject of God's kingdom. {7ABC 468.5} Satan refused to let his captives go. He held them as his subjects because of their belief of his lie. He had thus become their jailor. But he had no right to demand that a price be paid for them; because he had not obtained possession of them by lawful conquest, but under false pretense. {7ABC 468.6} God, being the creditor, had a right to make any provision for the redemption of human beings. Justice demanded that a certain price be paid. The Son of God was the only One who could pay (469) this price. He volunteered to come to this earth and pass over the ground where Adam fell. He came as the redeemer of the lost race, to conquer the wily foe, and by His steadfast allegiance to right, to save all who should accept Him as their Saviour.--Letter 20, 1903. {7ABC 468.7} Christ alone could bear the message of man's deliverance. He came with a full and complete ransom. He came to bring life and immortality within the reach of the fallen race. As the Life-giver, He assumed our nature, that He might reveal the character of God, and stamp His image on all who would receive Him. He became man that through His infinite sacrifice God might receive the homage of the restored race. . . . The science of redemption is as high as heaven, and its value is infinite. This truth is so broad, so deep, so high, that beside it all the wisdom of earth's wisest men sinks into insignificance. In comparison with the knowledge of God, all human knowledge is as chaff. And the way of salvation can be made known only by God.--Manuscript 69, 1897. {7ABC 469.1} All that God and Christ could do has been done to save sinners. Transgression placed the whole world in jeopardy, under the death sentence. But in heaven there was heard a voice saying, I have found a ransom. Jesus Christ, who knew no sin, was made sin for fallen man. "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Christ gave Himself as a ransom. He laid off His royal robe. He laid aside His kingly crown, and stepped down from His high command over all heaven, clothing His divinity with humanity that He might carry all the infirmities and bear all the temptations of humanity.--Letter 22, 1900. {7ABC 469.2} Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
skyblue888 Posted December 8, 2010 Author Posted December 8, 2010 Wow John, did u hit the jackpot? Okay, some of these statements seem pretty clear in saying the atonement was complete at the cross. Like this one: "He [Christ] planted the cross between Heaven and earth, and when the Father beheld the sacrifice of His Son, He bowed before it in recognition of its perfection. "It is enough," He said. "The Atonement is complete."--The Review and Herald, Sept. 24, 1901. {7ABC 459.6} I chekced this reference and it is correct. If the atonement was complete at the cross, as she says it was, then why does she also talk about Christ ascending up on High to make atonement for our trangressions? Why does she talk about Him entering into the final phase of the atonement on Oct.22 1844 if it was complete at the cross? And why did she say that she felt fully authorized by the Lord to recommend brother Crozier's article to every saint in which he plainly stated that there was no atonement made on the cross? sky Quote "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
Moderators John317 Posted December 8, 2010 Moderators Posted December 8, 2010 XIII. Atonement Vindicates God's Changeless Law The cross speaks to the hosts of heaven, to worlds unfallen, and to the fallen world, the value which God has placed upon men, and of His great love wherewith He has loved us. It testifies to the world, to angels, and to men, the immutability of the divine law. The death of God's only begotten Son upon the cross in the sinner's behalf is the unanswerable argument as to the changeless character of the law of Jehovah.--The Review and Herald, May 23, 1899. {7ABC 471.1} The cross of Christ testifies to the sinner that the law is not changed to meet the sinner in his sins, but that Christ has made an offering of Himself that the transgressors of the law might have an opportunity to repent. As Christ bore the sins of every transgressor so the sinner who will not believe in Christ as his personal Saviour, who rejects the light that comes to him, and refuses to respect and obey the commandments of God, will bear the penalty of his transgression.--Manuscript 133, 1897. {7ABC 471.2} The death of Christ was to be the convincing, everlasting argument that the law of God is as unchangeable as His throne. The agonies of the garden of Gethsemane, the insult, the mockery, the abuse heaped upon God's dear Son, the horrors and ignominy of the crucifixion, furnish sufficient and thrilling demonstration that God's justice, when it punishes, does the work thoroughly. The fact that His own Son, the Surety for man, was not spared, is an argument that will stand to all eternity before saint and sinner, before the universe of God, to testify that He will not excuse the transgressor of His law.--Manuscript 58, 1897. {7ABC 471.3} Satan is continuing the work on earth that he commenced in heaven. He leads men to transgress the commandments of God. The plain "Thus saith the Lord" is put aside for the "thus saith" of men. The whole world needs to be instructed in the oracles of God, to understand the object of the atonement, the at-one-ment, with God. The object of this atonement was that the divine law and government might be maintained. The sinner is pardoned through repentance toward God and faith in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. There is forgiveness of sin, and yet the law of God stands immutable, eternal as His throne. There is no such thing as weakening or strengthening the law of Jehovah. As it has always been, so it is. It cannot be repealed or changed in one principle. It is eternal, immutable as God Himself.--Manuscript 163, 1897. (472) {7ABC 471.4} Satan endeavored to keep hidden from the world the great atoning sacrifice which reveals the law in all its sacred dignity, and impresses hearts with the force of its binding claims. He was warring against the work of Christ, and united all his evil angels with human instrumentalities in opposition to that work. But while he was carrying on this work, heavenly intelligences were combining with human instrumentalities in the work of restoration. The cross stands as the great center of the world, bearing a certain testimony that the cross of Christ will be the condemnation of every transgressor of the law of God. Here are the two great powers, the power of truth and righteousness and the working of Satan to make of none effect the law of God.--Manuscript 61, 1899. {7ABC 472.1} The death of Christ removes every argument that Satan could bring against the precepts of Jehovah. Satan has declared that men could not enter the kingdom of heaven unless the law was abolished, and a way devised by which transgressors could be reinstated into the favor of God, and made heirs of heaven. He made the claim that the law must be changed, that the reins of government must be slackened in heaven, that sin must be tolerated, and sinners pitied and saved in their sins. But every such plea was cast aside when Christ died as a substitute for the sinner. --The Signs of the Times, May 21, 1912. {7ABC 472.2} XIV. Atonement Result of Divine Love The atonement of Christ was not made in order to induce God to love those whom He otherwise hated; and it was not made to produce a love that was not in existence; but it was made as a manifestation of the love that was already in God's heart, an exponent of the divine favor in the sight of heavenly intelligences, in the sight of worlds unfallen, and in the sight of a fallen race. . . . We are not to entertain the idea that God loves us because Christ has died for us, but that He so loved us that He gave His only-begotten Son to die for us.--The Signs of the Times, May 30, 1893. {7ABC 472.3} Christ, in counsel with His Father, instituted the system of sacrificial offerings; that death, instead of being immediately visited upon the transgressor, should be transferred to a victim which should prefigure the great and perfect offering of the Son of God. {7ABC 474.3} By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain. . . . Through the shed blood he looked forward to the future sacrifice, Christ dying on the cross of Calvary; and trusting in the atonement that was there to be made, he had witness that he was righteous, and his offering accepted.--Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 72. {7ABC 475.1} Christ on the cross not only draws men to repentance toward God for the transgression of His law--for whom God pardons He first makes penitent--but Christ has satisfied justice; He has proffered Himself as an atonement. His gushing blood, His broken body satisfy the claims of the broken law, and thus He bridges the gulf which sin has made. He suffered in the flesh that with His bruised and broken body He might cover the defenseless sinner. The victory gained at His death on Calvary broke forever the accusing power of Satan over the universe and silenced his charges that self-denial was impossible with God and therefore not essential in the human family.--Manuscript 50, 1900. {7ABC 475.4} Christ was crucified, but in wondrous power and glory He rose from the tomb. He took in His grasp the world over which Satan claimed to preside, and restored the human race to favor with God. And at this glorious completion of His work, songs of triumph echoed and re-echoed through the unfallen worlds. Angel and archangel, cherubim and seraphim, joined in the chorus of victory.--The Youth's Instructor, April 16, 1903. {7ABC 476.2} XVIII. Atonement Never to Be Repeated The death of Christ upon the cross made sure the destruction of him who has the power of death, who was the originator of sin. When Satan is destroyed, there will be none to tempt to evil; the atonement will never need to be repeated; and there will be no danger of another rebellion in the universe of God. That which alone can effectually restrain from sin in this world of darkness, will prevent sin in heaven. The significance of the death of Christ will be seen by saints and angels. Fallen men could not have a home in the paradise of God without the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Shall we not then exalt the cross of Christ?--The Signs of the Times, Dec. 30, 1889. {7ABC 476.3} Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
skyblue888 Posted December 8, 2010 Author Posted December 8, 2010 So, John, If the atonement was full and complete at the cross, then why does she also talk about Christ ascending up on High to make atonement for our trangressions and why does she talk about Him entering into the final phase of the atonement on Oct.22 1844? And why did she say that she felt fully authorized by the Lord to recommend brother Crozier's article to every saint in which he plainly stated that there was no atonement made on the cross? sky Quote "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
Moderators John317 Posted December 8, 2010 Moderators Posted December 8, 2010 ..."He [Christ] planted the cross between Heaven and earth, and when the Father beheld the sacrifice of His Son, He bowed before it in recognition of its perfection. "It is enough," He said. "The Atonement is complete."--The Review and Herald, Sept. 24, 1901. {7ABC 459.6} Based on everything she wrote on the topic, it seems clear to me she is saying the atoning sacrifice was complete at the cross, and that there is an important work of atonement continuing in the heavenly sanctuary today. I believe this is also what the Bible teaches. What Christ is doing today is just as important for our salvation as Christ's atonement on the cross. If all He had done was die, no one would be saved. It was necessary for Him to be resurrected and ascend to the Father and become our intercessor in the heavenly sanctuary. We were reconciled to God by Christ's atonement on the cross, and now that we are reconciled, we are being saved by His life. 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. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators Gerr Posted December 9, 2010 Moderators Posted December 9, 2010 I will answer you by another question: If the atonement was made on the cross, why would there be any need for any further atonement? If the atonement was made on the cross, why teach about a final atonement beginning on the 22nd of October 1844? G: AN atonement but not THE atonement at the Cross. You keep wanting to say that those who believe that AN atonement was the FINAL atonement. THAT is NOT the case. In fact, there has been A CONTINUOUS atonement being made since sin entered this planet. I have already stated previously as to when it will end. Quote
skyblue888 Posted December 9, 2010 Author Posted December 9, 2010 "He [Christ] planted the cross between Heaven and earth, and when the Father beheld the sacrifice of His Son, He bowed before it in recognition of its perfection. "It is enough," He said. "The Atonement is complete."--The Review and Herald, Sept. 24, 1901. {7ABC 459.6} Based on everything she wrote on the topic, it seems clear to me she is saying the atoning sacrifice was complete at the cross, and that there is an important work of atonement continuing in the heavenly sanctuary today. I believe this is also what the Bible teaches. What Christ is doing today is just as important for our salvation as Christ's atonement on the cross. If all He had done was die, no one would be saved. It was necessary for Him to be resurrected and ascend to the Father and become our intercessor in the heavenly sanctuary. We were reconciled to God by Christ's atonement on the cross, and now that we are reconciled, we are being saved by His life. 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. John317 ____________________________________________________ John, I have, right here with me, the Crozier Article titled, "The Sanctuary," copied from "Advent Review," Vol.1, Nos.3&4, September 1850. This is the article of which Mrs. White spoke of as being the "true light" on the atonement. On page 19 of this article are found the six points I have already quoted on this thread which repeatedly state that no atonement was made on Calvary. Mrs. White said that the Lord had shown her that Crozier had the true light on this and that it was His will that he should write out the view which he had given them in the Day-Star Extra, Feb.7, 1846. Then she says, "I feel fully authorized by the Lord to recommend that Extra to every saint." E.G. White, A Word To The Little Flock, bottom of page 12. Do you own a copy of A Word To The Little Flock? If you do, please turn to the bottom of page 12 and read it for yourself. If you could get a hold of "The Sanctuary" article by Crozier, that would be great. Here again are the six points found in this article and which deal with the question as to whether any atonement was made on Calvary. As we read these points again, let us keep in mind that the Lord said that brother Crozier had the true light and that it was His will that he should write out this view for every saint. 1. If the atonement was made on Calvary, by whom was it made? The making of the atonement is the work of a Priest, but who officiated on Calvary?--Roman soldiers and wicked Jews. 2. The slaying of the victim was not making the atonement; the sinner slew the victim, Leviticus 4:1-4,13-15, etc., after that the Priest took the blood and made the atonement. Leviticus 4:5-12, 16-21. 3. Christ was appointed High Priest to make the atonement, and He certainly could not have acted in that capacity till after His resurrection, and we have no record of His doing any thing on earth after His resurrection, which could be called the atonement. 4. The atonement was made in the Sanctuary, but Calvary was not such a place. 5. He could not according to Hebrews 8:4 make atonement while on earth. "If He were on earth, He should not be a Priest." The Levitical was the earthly priesthood; the Divine Priesthood, the heavenly. 6. Therefore, He did not begin the work of making atonement, whatever the nature of that work may be, till after His ascension, when by His own blood He entered the heavenly sanctuary for us." ______________________________________________________________ Now, how do we harmonize the above six points which are said to be the "true light" with the latest statements you quoted from Mrs. White? Are we facing a flat contradiction or just an apparent one? Thank you for your attention. sky Quote "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
JawgeFromJawja Posted December 9, 2010 Posted December 9, 2010 [color:#FF0000]OK, you believe that Jewish writers are describing Antiochus IV, but that is the very point that needs to be shown to be true. But here you are assuming it to be true without showing from history that it is Antiochus IV who fulfilled the prophecy. You say that Antiochus IV was greater than Medo-Persia and Greece in the sense that he affected the Jews far more than they were affected by the two previous kingdoms. But how do you know that Daniel's description was from the viewpoint of the way those kingdoms affected Palestine? When Daniel 7 speaks of various powers being "great," "exceedingly strong," and "dreadful," etc., are these terms primarily referring to the way those powers affected Palestine? "Great powers", "exceedingly strong", and "dreadful" are all relative descriptors of the devastation of "The Beautiful Land". Prior to Antiochus IV, God's People the Jews had been trucked away from their beloved home land, along with the fixtures of the Temple. Even so, the Jews in exile were allowed to practice Judaism, were allowed to circumcise their males, to celebrate the Sabbath. Antiochus IV went so far with his "abomination of devastation" as to proscribe anything Jewish. Circumcision, reading The Torah, keeping the Sabbath, and celebrating any Jewish holy day were all capital offences. Statues of pagan gods were placed in the Temple. Pork was sacrificed to those gods in the Temple. Prostitutes were put in compartments of the Temple. The level of brutal in your face suppression was much greater than that of previous conquerors. Did Greece affect Palestine more adversely than did Medo-Persia? Not so much Greece in the time of Alexander, but in the time of Alexander's generals jockeying for power, particularly. Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja You can get a feeling for this in the 4 books of the Maccabees, especially 1 and 2. Yes, there's no question that Antiochus IV persectuted the Jews of that period and desecrated the sanctuary in Jerusalem for 3 years. But it is also well known that the books of Maccabees are not always accurate, particularly 2 Maccabees. Even the CAtholic Church concedes this, as is evident in the introductions to these books in the Catholic Bibles. Of course Holy Scripture and Jewish literature are not always accurate. Accuracy can't be expected in Scripture and secular writing for which the original copies have been lost, and subsequent copies well documented to have been mistranslated and even changed according to the biases of the copyists. Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja Dan 8:8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven. Dan 8:9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land. Verse 8 is tells about four notable horns "coming up towards the four winds of heaven" toward the four winds. There is nothing in verse 8 about a little horn coming forth from one of the four directional winds taken by Alexanders generals. "Toward" is a preposition referring to the original four horns; "toward" tells of the four original horns various directions of spread. Verses 8, 9 read, "... and in its place there came up four conspicuous horns toward the four winds of heaven.And out of one of them came forth a rather small horn..." (NASB) It seems to me that in English, "one of the them" can be understood to refer either to "four horns" or "four winds." In any case-- leaving aside for the time being the issue of whether the last phrase refers to horns or winds-- I take this to mean that in the place of Alexander the Great, there came up the four powers that divided up his empire. These powers were led by Cassander, Lysimachus, Ptolemy, and Seleucus. Antiochus IV Epiphanes reigned over one of these four horns, that is, over the Seleucid dynasty of the Hellenistic kingdom that came to be known as Syria. His father was known as Antiochus III the Great, who eventually lost much of his territory-- all of Asia Minor-- to the Romans. My point here is that Antiochus IV was a part of the four horns. He was the eighth king (175-164 B.C.) in the Seleucid dynasty, or about in the middle of that power, or "horn." (The Seleucid dynasty ran from 312/311 to 65 B.C.) Notice that this means Antiochus IV did not rule at "the latter end" of the Seleucid kingdom, and he was an individual king ruling over one of the four horns. I would like to know if you are in agreement with this. Agreement with this? Essentially. Actually, the history of succession of the grand muck-a-mucks following after Alexander's initial generals is of necessity murky in spots. Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja You can get a better sense of the meaning of chapter eight, verses 8 and 9 in The New English Bible. The New English is good for reading, but since it's a dynamic translation and not literal, it can be misleading when you study it for a more precise meaning of the original language. Oh, come on, John. In one post you recommend NEB, then make that rather disparaging statement. So is it a good translation or not? Whether a translation is dynamic or literal matters not to God. It is meaning that matters, whether dynamic or literal. Who really cares about such nuances if the sense of a translation is good. Jawge Quote JawgeFromJawja Pro 5:18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. (Thank you, Lord. She is my heart and soul.)
Moderators John317 Posted December 9, 2010 Moderators Posted December 9, 2010 Of course Holy Scripture and Jewish literature are not always accurate. Accuracy can't be expected in Scripture and secular writing for which the original copies have been lost, and subsequent copies well documented to have been mistranslated and even changed according to the biases of the copyists. My point is that there's a difference between 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees as to accuracy and reliability. 2 Maccabees contains outright fiction, which even the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges. Neither of them was inspired or are part of the canon of Holy Scripture, although they are useful to read for the historical insight they offer in regard to the intertestimental period. Also, those two books deal with different periods of time. The histoical events narrated in 2 Maccabees took place before those in 1 Maccabees. What 1 Maccabees says about the period dealing with Antiochus IV is generally true, but I wouldn't depend on it at all for doctrine. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted December 9, 2010 Moderators Posted December 9, 2010 In any case-- leaving aside for the time being the issue of whether the last phrase refers to horns or winds-- I take this [that is' date=' Daniel 8: 8-9'] to mean that in the place of Alexander the Great, there came up the four powers that divided up his empire. These powers were led by Cassander, Lysimachus, Ptolemy, and Seleucus. Antiochus IV Epiphanes reigned over one of these four horns, that is, over the Seleucid dynasty of the Hellenistic kingdom that came to be known as Syria. His father was known as Antiochus III the Great, who eventually lost much of his territory-- all of Asia Minor-- to the Romans. My point here is that Antiochus IV was a part of the four horns. He was the eighth king (175-164 B.C.) in the Seleucid dynasty, or about in the middle of that power, or "horn." (The Seleucid dynasty ran from 312/311 to 65 B.C.) Notice that this means Antiochus IV did not rule at "the latter end" of the Seleucid kingdom, and he was an individual king ruling over one of the four horns. I would like to know if you are in agreement with this. Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja Agreement with this? Essentially. Actually, the history of succession of the grand muck-a-mucks following after Alexander's initial generals is of necessity murky in spots. OK, but those "murky spots" don't change the basic facts as I've given them above, do they? What I'm trying to find out is if we are in agreement on the interpretation of Daniel 8: 9, 10. Do you see anything in the above statements that you find inaccurate or that you disagree with for any reason? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
JawgeFromJawja Posted December 9, 2010 Posted December 9, 2010 In Daniel 2, what kingdoms do you believe are represented by the statue? Until very recently, with my nose now constantly in a book, I thought the kingdoms were Babylon (which is a given), the Medo-Persian complex, Hellenic Greece, and Rome. Now I am beginning to consider Babylon (again, a given), Medea, Persia,and The Hellenistic Complex. It's gonna take a lotta search in The Bible and History sources for me to come to an understanding of that. Jawge Quote JawgeFromJawja Pro 5:18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. (Thank you, Lord. She is my heart and soul.)
Moderators John317 Posted December 9, 2010 Moderators Posted December 9, 2010 You can get a better sense of the meaning of chapter eight, verses 8 and 9 in The New English Bible. Let's compare four translations of these verses, including the NEB and the King James Version: The Revised English Bible reads, "The he-goat in turn made a great display of its strength, but when it was at the height of its power its great horn broke, and in place of this there came up four prominent horns pointing toward the four quarters of heaven. [9] Out of one of them there emerged a little horn, which as it grew put forth its strength towards the south and the east and towards the fairest of all lands." The New English Bible: "Then the he-goat made a great display of its strength. Powerful as it was, its great horn snapped and in its place there sprang out towards the four quarters of heaven four prominent horns. [9] Out of one of them there issued one small horn, which made a prodigious show of strength south and east and towards the fairest of all lands." The King James Version: Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven. [9] And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land. The New King James Version: "Therefore the male goat grew very great; but when he became strong, the large horn was broken, and in place of it four notable ones came up toward the four winds of heaven. [9] And out of one of them came a little horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Glorious Land." NOTE: In these two verses, I can agree with you that the NEB gives a good sense of what is happening. Although there is some difference in the signifance of some of the words used, it is fundamentally the same meaning. The main difference I would point out is that in the more literal translations, it is clear that the he-goat grew "very great" whereas the little horn "grew exceedingly great." Originally Posted By: John3:17 The New English is good for reading, but since it's a dynamic translation and not literal, it can be misleading when you study it for a more precise meaning of the original language. Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja Oh, come on, John. In one post you recommend NEB, then make that rather disparaging statement. So is it a good translation or not? I never intended to give the impression that I would recommend the NEB as a good study Bible. The more literal translations are best sutied for that purpose. For instance, the KJV, the New King James, the New American Standard, the New Revised Standard, etc. I don't see my statement about the NEB as "disparaging." It is simply a fact that when you do a close study of the Bible, it is best not to base your study primarily on a paraphrase or dynamic translation. Paraphrases-- and to a lesser extent, dynamic translations--allow too much of the translator's views to influence what the text says, and they don't indicate to the reader which words are in the original and which words are added by the translator. The best study Bibles will inform the reader of this. Therefore it is wise to use one or more of the literal translations along with one of the paraphrases or dynamic translations. The NEB and REB are good translations for what they were intended to be. They weren't intended to take the place of literal translations. It's a poor translation if it's used for studying the way various Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek words are translated. Neither is it an ideal translation for studying the prophecies, because in the prophecies it is frequently important to distinguish individual words. Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja Whether a translation is dynamic or literal matters not to God. It is meaning that matters, whether dynamic or literal. Who really cares about such nuances if the sense of a translation is good. If the meaning is the same, I would agree with you, but usually when the words are changed, there's a change in the meaning. Sometimes the change in meaning is not significant, but there are other times when the change is very important. Just one example is Daniel 9: 25-- Revised English Bible: "Know, then, and understand: from the time that the decree went forth that Jerusalem should be restored and rebuilt, seven of those seventy will pass till the appearance of one anointed, a prince; then for sixty-two it will remain restored, rebuilt with streets and conduits. At the critical time..." Compare that with the King James Version: Daniel 9:25 "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times." As you can see, the meaning of those translations is not the same but is quite different, and significantly so. In terms of our study of Daniel, it's OK to quote or use any translation or even a paraphrase, but there will be times when it's also necesssary to take a closer look at the original language by the use of literal translations. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted December 9, 2010 Moderators Posted December 9, 2010 In Daniel 2, what kingdoms do you believe are represented by the statue? Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja Until very recently, with my nose now constantly in a book, I thought the kingdoms were Babylon (which is a given), the Medo-Persian complex, Hellenic Greece, and Rome. Now I am beginning to consider Babylon (again, a given), Medea, Persia,and The Hellenistic Complex. It's gonna take a lotta search in The Bible and History sources for me to come to an understanding of that. OK, sure. We can talk about those things when we study Daniel 2. We probably should have studied Daniel 2 at the beginning rather than Daniel 8, but we can do that next if you like. There are many good reasons why your initial view of those kingdoms was right. Daniel 8: 20 shows that Media and Persia are considered prophetically as a single kingdom, and history of course also views them together. There's also the fact the the description of the fourth kingdom is simply more like that of Rome than of Greece. But we can deal in detail with those things in due time & after you've had more time to study them on your own. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted December 9, 2010 Moderators Posted December 9, 2010 ...John, I have, right here with me, the Crozier Article titled, "The Sanctuary," copied from "Advent Review," Vol.1, Nos.3&4, September 1850. This is the article of which Mrs. White spoke of as being the "true light" on the atonement. On page 19 of this article are found the six points I have already quoted on this thread which repeatedly state that no atonement was made on Calvary. Mrs. White said that the Lord had shown her that Crozier had the true light on this and that it was His will that he should write out the view which he had given them in the Day-Star Extra, Feb.7, 1846. Then she says, "I feel fully authorized by the Lord to recommend that Extra to every saint." E.G. White, A Word To The Little Flock, bottom of page 12. ....._Now, how do we harmonize the above six points which are said to be the "true light" with the latest statements you quoted from Mrs. White? Are we facing a flat contradiction or just an apparent one? I don't think there's any genuine contradition, sky, and for the following reasons: Look closely on page 19 of the Crosier article where it says the following: "Let us now examine a few texts that appear to speak of the atonement as passed. Romans 5: 11; 'By whom we have now received the atonement,'(margin, reconciliation). This passage clearly shows a present possession of the atonement at that time the apostle wrote; but it by no means proves that the entire atonement was then in the past." NOTE: Those critical but most significant lines of Crosier are easy to miss. They are critical because Crosier there plainly acknowledges that an atonement took place at the cross, but he also says that the atonement at the cross was NOT "the entire atonement." This is precisely what Ellen White taught. It's important, too, for us to understand what Ellen White is saying on page 12 of A Word to the Little Flock. It's a mistake to conclude that Ellen White intends for us to believe everything in Crosier's article is correct. After all, Ellen White recommended Uriah Smith's book on Daniel and Revelation, but of course she never intended anyone to think she meant that Smith's book had no errors (although some mistook her words to mean this). She also recommended that people listen to Waggoner and Jones, but it's apparent that she didn't agree with them on everything they said. The context of Ellen White's statement in A Word to the Little Flock shows that in reference to Crosier's article, she was talking primarily about the light on the cleansing of the sanctuary. She said, "I believe the Sanctuary, to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days, is the New Jerusalem Temple, of which Christ is a minister. The Lord shew me in vision, more than one year ago, that Brother Crosier had the true light, on the cleansing of the sanctuary, etc....." Do you find any of this helpful? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
skyblue888 Posted December 10, 2010 Author Posted December 10, 2010 John, I have, right here with me, the Crozier Article titled, "The Sanctuary," copied from "Advent Review," Vol.1, Nos.3&4, September 1850. This is the article of which Mrs. White spoke of as being the "true light" on the atonement. On page 19 of this article are found the six points I have already quoted on this thread which repeatedly state that no atonement was made on Calvary. Mrs. White said that the Lord had shown her that Crozier had the true light on this and that it was His will that he should write out the view which he had given them in the Day-Star Extra, Feb.7, 1846. Then she says, "I feel fully authorized by the Lord to recommend that Extra to every saint." E.G. White, A Word To The Little Flock, bottom of page 12. ....._Now, how do we harmonize the above six points which are said to be the "true light" with the latest statements you quoted from Mrs. White? Are we facing a flat contradiction or just an apparent one? sky __________________________________________- I don't think there's any genuine contradition, sky, and for the following reasons: Look closely on page 19 of the Crosier article where it says the following: "Let us now examine a few texts that appear to speak of the atonement as passed. Romans 5: 11; 'By whom we have now received the atonement,'(margin, reconciliation). This passage clearly shows a present possession of the atonement at that time the apostle wrote; but it by no means proves that the entire atonement was then in the past." NOTE: Those critical but most significant lines of Crosier are easy to miss. They are critical because Crosier there plainly acknowledges that an atonement took place at the cross, but he also says that the atonement at the cross was NOT "the entire atonement." This is precisely what Ellen White taught. It's important, too, for us to understand what Ellen White is saying on page 12 of A Word to the Little Flock. It's a mistake to conclude that Ellen White intends for us to believe everything in Crosier's article is correct. After all, Ellen White recommended Uriah Smith's book on Daniel and Revelation, but of course she never intended anyone to think she meant that Smith's book had no errors (although some mistook her words to mean this). She also recommended that people listen to Waggoner and Jones, but it's apparent that she didn't agree with them on everything they said. The context of Ellen White's statement in A Word to the Little Flock shows that in reference to Crosier's article, she was talking primarily about the light on the cleansing of the sanctuary. She said, "I believe the Sanctuary, to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days, is the New Jerusalem Temple, of which Christ is a minister. The Lord shew me in vision, more than one year ago, that Brother Crosier had the true light, on the cleansing of the sanctuary, etc....." Do you find any of this helpful? John317 ________________________________ Thanks John. You quoted the words of Crozier, "Let us now examine a few texts that appear to speak of the atonement as passed. Romans 5: 11; 'By whom we have now received the atonement,'(margin, reconciliation). This passage clearly shows a present possession of the atonement at that time the apostle wrote; but it by no means proves that the entire atonement was then in the past." Interesting John, I read that same paragraph today! You are suggesting that Crozier is quoting Romans 5:11 having Calvary on his mind. Romans 5:11 was written way after Christ had ascended up on High to make atonement for our transgressions. "He ascended up on High to make atonement for our transgressions." F.W.105. This is what he had in mind which is in total harmony with his previous six points. Christ ascended up on High to make atonement and this was not the entire atonement. Crozier understood that. He understood that Christ had entered the most holy place on the 22nd of October to enter into the final phase of the atonement which He had begun after His ascension. Otherwise what he said in the six points he had just made would make no sense whatsoever. The paragraph you quoted is on the same page where he made those six points showing that no atonement was made at Calvary. Does that help? sky Quote "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36.
Moderators John317 Posted December 10, 2010 Moderators Posted December 10, 2010 (quoting): "Let us now examine a few texts that appear to speak of the atonement as passed. Romans 5: 11; 'By whom we have now received the atonement,'(margin, reconciliation). This passage clearly shows a present possession of the atonement at that time the apostle wrote; but it by no means proves that the entire atonement was then in the past." Originally Posted By: skyblue Interesting John, I read that same paragraph today! You are suggesting that Crozier is quoting Romans 5:11 having Calvary on his mind. Romans 5:11 was written way after Christ had ascended up on High to make atonement for our transgressions. "He ascended up on High to make atonement for our transgressions." F.W.105. This is what he had in mind which is in total harmony with his previous six points. Christ ascended up on High to make atonement and this was not the entire atonement. Crozier understood that. He understood that Christ had entered the most holy place on the 22nd of October to enter into the final phase of the atonement which He had begun after His ascension. Otherwise what he said in the six points he had just made would make no sense whatsoever. The paragraph you quoted is on the same page where he made those six points showing that no atonement was made at Calvary. Does that help? I don't believe that Crosier wanted the reader to conclude there was no atoning sacrifice made a calvary. If he did, however, it would clearly contradict Ellen White and the Bible, don't you agree? Ellen White's recommendation of the Crosier article doesn't mean she wanted her reader to think everything Crosier wrote in it was correct. She herself wrote many times that the death of Christ on the cross was a work of atonement. I believe the following verses in the Bible also show that there was indeed an atonement made at the cross: At the cross, Christ "brought about purification [or cleansing]from sins." Christ brought about this purification from sins before He took His seat at the right hand of God.(Heb. 1: 3). NOTE: This purging of sin-- which was an atonement(Lev. 16:30)-- was a past act, but as Hebrews 9: 15 shows, it is also a present, continuous work of Christ our High Priest. M.L. Andreason comments, "Those who claim that Christ's work was finished on the cross fail to take into consideration the continual, daily application of the blood necessary to man's salvation. No more than God created the world and set it in motion, and then left it to run by itself, does Christ by one act on Calvary set redemption in motion, and then leave it to work by itself. The slaying of the sacrificial lamb in the sanctuary was a definite act which provided the means of reconciliation, the blood. But the blood had to be ministered to be efficacious, and the ministration was equally vital with the death. The blood shed on Calvary is mighty to the cleansing and purifying of the conscience from dead works, not as a past act merely, but as a living, present reality." (The Book of Hebrews, pages 350, 351.) Romans 3:24-26 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 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. [26] It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 2 Cor. 5:18-19 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; [19] that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. NOTE: the above is talking about the cross, not Christ's work in the heavenly sanctuary. Notice: "reconciled," "was reconciling," all past tense. Ephes. 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, Col. 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. [21] For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, [20] and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. [21] And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, [22] he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, It was at the cross that Christ "made expiation for the sins of the people" (Heb. 1: 17). cf. Leviticus 16:30 For on this day shall atonement be made for you to cleanse you. You shall be clean before the Lord from all your sins. At the cross, Christ "obtained eternal redemption for us." (Hebrews 9:12) At the cross, Christ "appeared once for all at the climax of history to abolish sin by the sacrifice of himself" (Heb. 9: 26). At the cross, "Christ was offered once to bear the sins of mankind" (Heb. 9: 28). We have been consecrated, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Heb. 10: 10) At the cross, Christ offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins. (Heb. 10: 12) "By one offering [at the cross] he has perfected for ever those who are consecrated by it." (Heb. 10: 14) Romans 5: 18-- Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. Romans 5:10-11 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. [11] And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. The word translated "atonement" in verse 11 is the same word which is translated "reconciled" in verse 10. It is self-evidence that this atonement took place at the death of Christ on the cross. In verse 11, Paul says believers receive this atonement, but the atonement he speaks of took place at the cross and not at His ascension. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.