Atonement - when?

[Stewart (SDA)]

Samie,

I'm not sure if this point has already been raised in the thread, but I think it's important to note that throughout the DAILY services, atonements were frequently made by the common priests.

Leviticus 4:20,26,31,35; 5:6,10,13,16,18 are examples of these daily atonements. The word, "atonement", used in all these verses is the same Hebrew word used in the Lev 16 verse you have cited.

Daily atonements were complete insofar as these could go, but the work of atonement continued until the great Day of Atonement, when the Priest (in His High-Priestly role) accomplished the FINAL phase of atonement. Not until then were the people clean form all their [previously confessed and forgiven] sins.

Again, I think it is important to note that DAILY atonements, and then a FINAL atonement, are taught in Scripture.

[Samie]

Samie,

I'm not sure if this point has already been raised in the thread, but I think it's important to note that throughout the DAILY services, atonements were frequently made by the common priests.

Leviticus 4:20,26,31,35; 5:6,10,13,16,18 are examples of these daily atonements. The word, "atonement", used in all these verses is the same Hebrew word used in the Lev 16 verse you have cited.

Daily atonements were complete insofar as these could go, but the work of atonement continued until the great Day of Atonement, when the Priest (in His High-Priestly role) accomplished the FINAL phase of atonement. Not until then were the people clean form all their [previously confessed and forgiven] sins.

Again, I think it is important to note that DAILY atonements, and then a FINAL atonement, are taught in Scripture.

Good point, brother.

But let me remind you that Jesus did not come as ordinary priest for the Daily atonements; He came as High Priest for the Final Atonement at Yum Kippur. He did not function both as ordinary priest (hierius) and a High Priest (archiereus). This the Bible clearly points out.

[Stewart (SDA)]

I don't ask with sarcasm or contempt, Samie, but do the "common" priests in the Sanctuary service typify (or represent) anyone?

[Samie]

I don't ask with sarcasm or contempt, Samie, but do the "common" priests in the Sanctuary service typify (or represent) anyone?

Nor is my answer with sarcasm or contempt, but unless shown from Scriptures that the "common" priests typify anyone, I could not believe otherwise. On the other hand, I can show from Scriptures that Christ came as High Priest, and this is proof enough that He was typified by Aaron and all the other High Priests of Israel.

[Kevin H]

Had Windsor considered the above verses, he would have arrived at a different conclusion. These verses say that Jesus has entered within the veil, at the time the book of Hebrews was written, and that the phrase "within the veil" refers to the Most Holy Place.

In Christ,

Samie

Although my background is in the history and not the languages, according to those who have studied the language there is a language study that is very helpful here. In the Greek Old Testaments, such as the LXX, there were two ways of saying "Within the veil" referring to the priest entering the Most Holy Place. One is to enter upon the inauguration of the sanctuary ministry, the other is when the priest would again enter for the Yom Kippur ministry.

The Hebrews text is quoting these Greek Old Testaments, and is using the words for entering the Most Holy Place to inaugurate the start of the ministry, NOT the words for entering for the Yom Kippur ministry. I think that the author of Hebrews had a better understanding of Greek to not confuse the two.

[Stewart (SDA)]

Also, with regards to the phrase "within the veil", when Paul is describing the Sanctuary, and begins a description of the Most Holy Place, he says, "after the second veil...". (Heb 9:3)

Obviously there are TWO veils to be considered.

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: Samie

Had Windsor considered the above verses, he would have arrived at a different conclusion. These verses say that Jesus has entered within the veil, at the time the book of Hebrews was written, and that the phrase "within the veil" refers to the Most Holy Place.

In Christ,

Samie

Although my background is in the history and not the languages, according to those who have studied the language there is a language study that is very helpful here. In the Greek Old Testaments, such as the LXX, there were two ways of saying "Within the veil" referring to the priest entering the Most Holy Place. One is to enter upon the inauguration of the sanctuary ministry, the other is when the priest would again enter for the Yom Kippur ministry.

The Hebrews text is quoting these Greek Old Testaments, and is using the words for entering the Most Holy Place to inaugurate the start of the ministry, NOT the words for entering for the Yom Kippur ministry. I think that the author of Hebrews had a better understanding of Greek to not confuse the two.

That's great, Kevin. I do likewise believe the author of Hebrews had a better understanding compared to everyone of us. In my case, I simply believe the author when He said Christ entered within the veil as High Priest in the order of Melchizedek.

You said "there were two ways of saying "Within the veil" referring to the priest entering the Most Holy Place." Would you please elaborate on each of those two ways citing Scriptures to back up your point?

Also, what Scriptural basis led you to conclude that "The Hebrews text is quoting these Greek Old Testaments, and is using the words for entering the Most Holy Place to inaugurate the start of the ministry, NOT the words for entering for the Yom Kippur ministry".

Thank you, brother.

In Christ,

Samie

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: Stewart (SDA)

Samie,

I'm not sure if this point has already been raised in the thread, but I think it's important to note that throughout the DAILY services, atonements were frequently made by the common priests.

Leviticus 4:20,26,31,35; 5:6,10,13,16,18 are examples of these daily atonements. The word, "atonement", used in all these verses is the same Hebrew word used in the Lev 16 verse you have cited.

Daily atonements were complete insofar as these could go, but the work of atonement continued until the great Day of Atonement, when the Priest (in His High-Priestly role) accomplished the FINAL phase of atonement. Not until then were the people clean form all their [previously confessed and forgiven] sins.

Again, I think it is important to note that DAILY atonements, and then a FINAL atonement, are taught in Scripture.

Good point, brother.

But let me remind you that Jesus did not come as ordinary priest for the Daily atonements; He came as High Priest for the Final Atonement at Yum Kippur. He did not function both as ordinary priest (hierius) and a High Priest (archiereus). This the Bible clearly points out.

Stewart is right on. Jesus made daily atonements in the first apartment of the sanctuary above until 1844. When He entered the most holy place He did not stop making atonement. He will make the final atonement at the end of the loud cry when the mission of the Gospel is completed at the time of the great final test.

In the book Faith & Works, p.105, we read "He ascended up on High to make atonement for our transgressions."

It does not say to make the final atonement but to make atonement. He has been making atonement ever since until He shall make the final atonement. The final atonement He cannot make until the people of God have received the final seal prior to the close of probation and the beginning of the time of Jacob's trouble.

sky

[Kevin H]

Samie: sounds like you want a simple proof text rather than study. If you are willing to study, Dr. Richard Davidson has some excellent studies about the two phrases used in the Greek Translations of the Old Testament and their relationship to the book of Hebrews and I would point you into looking at those studies.

[skyblue888]

I did not realize this was a thread in which

I participated in before.

I received the link in my e-mail box this

morning thinking it was a new thread by

Stewart.

In the discussion I mentioned Crozier's

view of the atonement which Mrs. White

confirmed as being the true light.

There was no atonement made at Calvary.

When Jesus died upon the cross the

condition for the atonement was fulfilled,

but no atonement was made until Jesus ascended

up on High. But He could not begin the atonement

in the first apartment of the sanctuary above

until His sacrifice had been accepted of the

Father. "The Father has accepted

it, and the angelic host have come to the cross,

and God Himself has bowed in acceptance of the

sacrifice." F.W.72.

Then we read these words, "And as

the Father beheld the cross, He was satisfied, He said, 'It is enough,

the offering is complete." 5 B.C.1138.

The offering is complete, not the atonement!

In other words, "Christ's

sacrifice in behalf of man was full and

complete. The CONDITION for the atonement

had been fulfilled."

A.A.29.

This clearly shows that in order for Jesus to

begin His priestly ministry in the sanctuary

above, in order to begin the daily atonement

in the first apartment of the sanctuary above,

He first had to be the Lamb that was slain.

After His resurrction He did not allow

Mary to touch Him for He had not yet ascended

up on High. As soon as He received the approval

of the Father, He began His Priestly Ministry in

the first apartment making atonement for our

transgressions by pleading the merits of His

shed blood before Him.

And in 1844 He entered into the final phase of

the atonement. Before probation closes He will

make the final atonement. This teaching is

the central pillar of the Advent message.

sky

[ClubV12]

"If you are willing to study..."

So true for all of us. For those who once knew and have rejected the counsel of Ellen White and the doctrines of the Church, further study will only lead to further confusion.

[ClubV12]

Regarding the question of Enoch and others who were in heaven BEFORE Christ died.

What would have happened to them, to Christ and to this planet had Christ FAILED in His mission?

I believe Jesus would have, at the very least, been denied access to the Father eternally. For Him, a fate worse than death. With no atonement for the planet and it's inhabitants, this would have changed everything, every human who ever lived would have been eternally doomed. What we DO know is that we will study the salvation plan for eternity. As we more and more understand the unfathomnable risk the Father and the Son undertook we will appreciate more and more the sacrafice.

Enoch and the others would have ceased to exist, had Christ failed. While it is easy to conclude that the Father knew Christ would be successful, I don't conclude that. The risk of failure was ever present. The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit meeting in the counsels of God considered the risk, the Father hesitant to allow it. Finally, they grasped hands, made a pact, and the plan was allowed to proceed. At significant risk.

And how do we know this? If you don't accept the inspired testimony of Ellen White, you don't, you can assume whatever you want and struggle to make sense of it. You can recount various bible verses to support your theory, but as Paul warned, be careful not to wrest them to your own destruction. From MY reading of her inspired testimony, not in one place, but comparing testimony to testimony, these are my conclusions on the matter.

By the way, Sky, I can see some harmony between Crosiers excellent work on the details and Lysimachus' comments. As it concerns a daily atonement begining with Christs ascension and acceptance of His sacrafice. One simply being the year round (daily) atonement, the other being the once a year atonement.

[ClubV12]

"Christ was not alone in making His great sacrifice. It was the fulfillment of the covenant made between Him and His Father before the foundation of the world was laid. With clasped hands they had entered into the solemn pledge that Christ would become the surety for the human race IF they were overcome by Satan’s sophistry."

Manuscript Releases, Volume 1 Nos. 19-96, 1941-1957

[Samie]

Samie: sounds like you want a simple proof text rather than study. If you are willing to study, Dr. Richard Davidson has some excellent studies about the two phrases used in the Greek Translations of the Old Testament and their relationship to the book of Hebrews and I would point you into looking at those studies.

Yes, brother, I want to study. Is there any other better study than study of Scriptures? If there is no proof text available from Scriptures backing up a point raised on a Biblical issue, then how could it stand the test of Scriptures? Is not the Bible and the Bible alone the only authority and basis for any doctrine?

[Samie]

I did not realize this was a thread in which

I participated in before.

I received the link in my e-mail box this

morning thinking it was a new thread by

Stewart.

In the discussion I mentioned Crozier's

view of the atonement which Mrs. White

confirmed as being the true light.

There was no atonement made at Calvary.

When Jesus died upon the cross the

condition for the atonement was fulfilled,

but no atonement was made until Jesus ascended

up on High. But He could not begin the atonement

in the first apartment of the sanctuary above

until His sacrifice had been accepted of the

Father. "The Father has accepted

it, and the angelic host have come to the cross,

and God Himself has bowed in acceptance of the

sacrifice." F.W.72.

Then we read these words, "And as

the Father beheld the cross, He was satisfied, He said, 'It is enough,

the offering is complete." 5 B.C.1138.

The offering is complete, not the atonement!

In other words, "Christ's

sacrifice in behalf of man was full and

complete. The CONDITION for the atonement

had been fulfilled."

A.A.29.

...

sky

Would you care to harmonize the statement I highlighted above with the following statements?

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, September 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}

[skyblue888]

I have seen these statements before.

Now we have an apparent contradiction.

In one place she writes that His death

upon the cross fulfilled the "condition"

for the atonement.

In another place she writes that He ascended

up on High to make atonement for our transgressions.

In another place we read that He began the final

phase of the atonement when He entered the Most Holy

Place on Oct.22, 1844.

And then we have read how she categorically stated

that Crozier's article on the atonement was the true

light and which declared that no atonement was made

on the cross.

If I am not mistaken, you are not a believer in the

Spirit of Prophecy and yet you are quoting from that

source to pit it against itself!

It is an apparent contradiction, that's all.

God said, "The atonement is complete" because He knew that

since Christ had fulfilled the condition for the atonement

that He would be able to do His work as Priest in both

apartments and that in due time He would enter into the

Most Holy to begin the final phase of the atonement and

complete it by making the final atonement, as typified by

the services in the earthly sanctuary.

It is the same with the other statement in which Mrs. White

is stating that when He offered Himself on the cross, a

perfect atonement was made for the sins of the people, she

had the whole picture in mind just as God the Father did.

She knew that Jesus would be able to make atonement by pleading

the merits of His shed blood in the sanctuary above and that

He would complete the atonement at the end of the age at the time

of the judgment of the living.

This is the only conclusion we can come to when we compare these

statements with the others I have already quoted.

sky

[ClubV12]

I see perfect harmony with Skys statement and the statements of Ellen White. The Father and the Son do all things in perfect order and in perfect timing.

When the race is won, even when it is completely clear who won, the results need to be officially recognized by a governing body before they are entered into the record books.

Such was the atonement, it was done, the race was won. Jesus now needed to ascend to His Father and have the results officially recognized. So the observing heavenly host would have no question concerning the victory.

What strikes me is this phrase:

"He (the Father) bowed before it in recognition of its perfection.“ Now that is beautiful!

[Samie]

Bro. sky,

If there is "apparent contradiction" in the SOP as you humbly acknowledged, and that there is no contradiction in Scriptures to which the SOP counsels us to make as our final authority, can we then from now on back up our positions with and base our discussions on the Bible and the Bible alone, the infallible Word of God?

In Christ,

Samie

[Samie]

Bro. Club,

Since Bro. sky has already acknowledged there is "apparent contradiction" in the SOP, so for you, which is which:

1. A perfect atonement was made at Calvary, or

2. Atonement started in 1844

It is easy to show that Scriptures back up the #1 option above. And I am ready to do it.

In Christ,

Samie

[ClubV12]

Samie, an "apparent contradiction" means there was no actual contradiction. In view of your misunderstand the meaning of a simple word, I wouldn't be to quick to dismiss Ellen Whites valuable commentary on biblical issues. As an author of over fifty books she is well qualified to speak on these subjects.

On the other hand, who are you and why should I take your word as fact? From what I have seen, you offer not "apparent contradictions" but actual contradictions as it pertains to doctrine. Of course, thats just my opinion. Forced to choose between your opinion and the opinion of Ellen White, the choice is clear!

Before you say, "I am prepared to prove it" again, consider how boastful and proud that sounds. You can prove nothing, conviction of truth comes only through the Holy Spirit.

[skyblue888]

Samie, there are apparent contradictions in the Bible as well,

as you know.

sky

[Samie]

Some dates to consider:

1. On April 21, 1847, Sister White wrote a letter to Brother Eli Curtis. In that letter, she said:

“the Lord showed me in vision, more than one year ago, that Brother Crozier had the true light on the cleansing of the sanctuary, etc.; and that it was his will that Brother Crozier should write out the view which he gave us in the The Day-Star Extra, February 7, 1846. I feel fully authorized by the Lord to recommend that extra to every saint.”—A Word to the “Little Flock“ p12

Here is a statement by Owen Russell Loomis Crosier considered as among the true light on the cleansing of the sanctuary:

"Therefore, he did not begin the work of making the atonement, whatever the nature of that work may be, till after his ascension, when by his own blood he entered his heavenly Sanctuary for us." Day-Star Extra, p25

2. On June 28, 1899, the Signs of the Times has these words of Sister White:

"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}

3. On September 24, 1901, the Review and Herald published this statement of Sister White:

"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, September 24, 1901. {7ABC 459.6}

Is it not possible that Sister White could have realized that the position of Crosier she endorsed in 1847, was not true light after all? Otherwise, she could not have said after more than 50 years later that a perfect atonement was made on Calvary and that the Father Himself said that the atonement was complete, if she still believed in Crosier's words.

In Christ,

Samie

[ClubV12]

Samie, you don't seem to grasp the concept of "apparent contradiction". "Apparent", in this case, means it appears to be something it is not. This is a very common occurence in biblical matters. Personally, I believe God allows this to confuse and baffle those who are not willing to dig deep to find the truth, or those who say they are seeking truth but refuse to let go of their preconceived ideas. In the case of the later the typical response is that they want someone to "prove" to them the truth.

Jesus recognized this and noted that He would work no miracle on their behalf, to "prove" anything. Sufficient evidence had been provided, it had been ignored and He would not engage in a dispute over it.

There is no contradiction between what the bible, Crosier, Ellen White and in this case, even Sky, has said regarding this matter of when/how the atonement begins/works. All parties are in perfect agreement. I do recognize that to some, it will not "appear" to be that way.

To the readers, with apologies to Sky. Sky and I disagree on many things! On this particular point of the atonement, we just happen to agree. Wonders never cease...

[Ted Oplinger]

Bro. Club,

Since Bro. sky has already acknowledged there is "apparent contradiction" in the SOP, so for you, which is which:

1. A perfect atonement was made at Calvary, or

2. Atonement started in 1844

It is easy to show that Scriptures back up the #1 option above. And I am ready to do it.

In Christ,

Samie

Samie, atonement follows the illustration depicted in the sanctuary: There is a Daily component through the burnt, sin, and guilt offerings, where atonement is seen on a daily basis, and there is the Yearly component, typified by the Day of Atonement.

Complete atonement includes both services. Your line of posts indicates you desire one or the other. Either/or is an incomplete Gospel...

[Samie]

Some dates to consider:

1. On April 21, 1847, Sister White wrote a letter to Brother Eli Curtis. In that letter, she said:

“the Lord showed me in vision, more than one year ago, that Brother Crozier had the true light on the cleansing of the sanctuary, etc.; and that it was his will that Brother Crozier should write out the view which he gave us in the The Day-Star Extra, February 7, 1846. I feel fully authorized by the Lord to recommend that extra to every saint.”—A Word to the “Little Flock“ p12

Here is a statement by Owen Russell Loomis Crosier considered as among the true light on the cleansing of the sanctuary:

"Therefore, he did not begin the work of making the atonement, whatever the nature of that work may be, till after his ascension, when by his own blood he entered his heavenly Sanctuary for us." Day-Star Extra, p25

2. On June 28, 1899, the Signs of the Times has these words of Sister White:

"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}

3. On September 24, 1901, the Review and Herald published this statement of Sister White:

"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, September 24, 1901. {7ABC 459.6}

Is it not possible that Sister White could have realized that the position of Crosier she endorsed in 1847, was not true light after all? Otherwise, she could not have said after more than 50 years later that a perfect atonement was made on Calvary and that the Father Himself said that the atonement was complete, if she still believed in Crosier's words.

In Christ,

Samie

These later statements of Sister White, which completely overturned her previous endorsement of Crozier, are in total agreement with what Scriptures say. Who knows, but Sister White could have studied for herself what Scriptures really say on the subject of atonement.

The main objective of atonement done in Yum Kippur is cleansing from all sin (Lev 16:30). Rev 1:5 tells us Christ has washed us from all sin. If Christ has already washed us clean from sin, then atonement has occurred. It is therefore in full harmony with Scriptures for Sister White to say that "When He offered Himself on the cross, a perfect atonement was made for the sins of the people".