Atonement - when?

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: 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

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...

[ClubV12]

The Priests were from the tribe of Levi, but Jesus was from the tribe of David (Judah).

And then there was Melchizedek, who doesn't fit any tribe. Interesting...

When it comes to digging for buried treasure, there is nothing "easy" about it, if your doing it right!

"One thing is certain: Those Seventh-day Adventists who take their stand under Satan’s banner will first give up their faith in the warnings and reproofs contained in the Testimonies of God’s Spirit." 3SM 84

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted By: 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.

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?

But part of the Bible and the Bible alone incudes the geography, the historical and cultural contexts, literary context, poetic structures etc. I can not say to you "If you turn to... you will read this verse that says that the author of Hebrews had this in mind."

However it can be pointed out that the author of Hebrews shows a keen understanding of the Greek translations of the Old Testament. One aspect of the Greek translations is that it used two very different phrases for the high priest entering into the Most Holy to distinguish between the two reasons why the high priest would enter into the most holy. The author of Hebrews specifically choose one of those two phrases. He (or she) specifically choose the one that DOES NOT MEAN the day of Atonement. If the author of Hebrews wanted us to think that Jesus entered for the day of atonement ministry, then why in the world did the author not pick the words that meant to enter for the day of atonement ministry? Why do you have to assume that the author of Hebrews made a mistake and you have to correct his mistake?

Either the Author of Hebrews wanted us to know that Jesus entered to inaugurate the heavenly sanctuary service and did not want us to think that he went in on Yom Kippur aspects, or the author picked the wrong phrase and you need to correct the mistake. Or more likely, you either have little to no knowledge of the languages and like me have to depend on those who have studied them more, and look at their studies to see if they make sense or not. And that you know, or read someone who knows that the phrase in Greek means to enter the Most Holy place and thus jump to the conclusion that it means the Yom Kippur ministry, since you and/or your sources have not don't a study of the Greek translations of the Old Testament to see the two different terms used for the two different reasons for entering the most holy.

Once again Dr. Richard Davidson has some excellent Biblical studies into this situation and I recommend his work on this topic. It will make it clearer than the poor words I can say.

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: Samie

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?

...

However it can be pointed out that the author of Hebrews shows a keen understanding of the Greek translations of the Old Testament. One aspect of the Greek translations is that it used two very different phrases for the high priest entering into the Most Holy to distinguish between the two reasons why the high priest would enter into the most holy. The author of Hebrews specifically choose one of those two phrases. He (or she) specifically choose the one that DOES NOT MEAN the day of Atonement. If the author of Hebrews wanted us to think that Jesus entered for the day of atonement ministry, then why in the world did the author not pick the words that meant to enter for the day of atonement ministry?

[Samie]

I reviewed my posts. The phrase "within the veil" is, I guess, one of the phrases. What about the other phrase, Kevin? And is the phrase "within the veil" the one you said refer to entry of the High Priest to the Most Holy Place? Please do specify. Thanks.

[Samie]

The Priests were from the tribe of Levi, but Jesus was from the tribe of David (Judah).

And then there was Melchizedek, who doesn't fit any tribe. Interesting...

When it comes to digging for buried treasure, there is nothing "easy" about it, if your doing it right!

"One thing is certain: Those Seventh-day Adventists who take their stand under Satan’s banner will first give up their faith in the warnings and reproofs contained in the Testimonies of God’s Spirit." 3SM 84

Bro. Club,

You believe as I do that when Sister White endorsed Crozier's stand that there was no atonement made at Calvary, she was standing under God's banner, don't you?

You likewise believe as I do that she was still standing under God's banner when more than 50 years later she wrote that when Christ "offered Himself on the cross, a perfect atonement was made for the sins of the people", don't you?

Now, what caused you to insinuate that Samie is standing under Satan's banner in taking the same position on the issue of atonement that Sister White espoused later in life?

Isn't that also insinuating that Sister White is likewise standing under the same banner under which Samie stands, since Samie's position is her position as well?

Keep your answers to yourself, brother, and meditate under whose banner you now stand.

In Christ,

Samie

[ClubV12]

Samie, I have no faith in the "One Atonement" doctrine that you preach. Nor do I have any faith in a multitude of other false doctrines you teach. Doctrines which you know oppose the pillars of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It is sad to see how far you have fallen from the truth friend. Sister White and Crossier are in perfect harmony concerning the atonement, this truth is hidden from you in the delusion you have allowed yourself to fall into.

"One thing is certain: Those Seventh-day Adventists who take their stand under Satan’s banner will first give up their faith in the warnings and reproofs contained in the Testimonies of God’s Spirit."

3 Selected Messages pg 84

[Ted Oplinger]

Originally Posted By: Ted Oplinger

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...

Brother Ted,

I believe you likewise know that Christ came to earth as High Priest (archiereus), not as a common priest (hiereus). His ministry therefore comprise the atonement done in Yum Kippur.

Originally Posted By: Ted Oplinger

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

I am sorry to say this, brother, but it is easy to show from Scriptures that the brand of Gospel you know is NOT the Gospel the Lord, Who did a complete atonement on the cross, wanted preached in all the world before He comes again. I am ready anytime to give the Scriptural basis of what the everlasting gospel really is.

Sorry, Samie, the High Priest was not one who sat around day-by-day, awaiting the one day he was the centerpiece. The High Priest had daily duties every morning and every evening, 7 days a week. The daily offerings were to be brought before the High Priest - he had the right to officiate over any ceremony at any time. The common priests were there as the presence of the High Priest, and officiated only as his designee. It was the High Priest who carried the burden of Israel day-by-day, every day, as evidenced by the breastplate he wore symbolizing this.

If you think a couple of proof texts would overthrow the tenor of Scripture on this point, you are indeed sadly mistaken.

[Kevin H]

[Samie]

Samie, I have no faith in the "One Atonement" doctrine that you preach. Nor do I have any faith in a multitude of other false doctrines you teach. Doctrines which you know oppose the pillars of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It is sad to see how far you have fallen from the truth friend.

[Samie]

Bro. Kevin,

Thanks for the effort. As I have previously said, I want to study. Here's what Sister White recommended for study:

"But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority—not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain “Thus saith the Lord” in its support. {GC 595.1}

"Satan is constantly endeavoring to attract attention to man in the place of God. He leads the people to look to bishops, to pastors, to professors of theology, as their guides, instead of searching the Scriptures to learn their duty for themselves. Then, by controlling the minds of these leaders, he can influence the multitudes according to his will." {GC 595.2}

In Christ,

Samie

[Samie]

And Yes, Bro. Kevin, I want to be your guest in the study of Scriptures.

[ClubV12]

Samie says, "Sister White has the same view on Atonement as I have,,,"

No, she doesn't! She never changed her views on the atonement, she only added, built up, additional detail. Thats what prophets have always done, build on the foundation of truth that came before them.

People think they see all kinds of things that aren't there, both in the bible and the Spirit of Prophecy. There are lots of bible verses to support the rapture, eternal hell fire, one atonement, literal day instead of day for a year, it's a very long list of false doctrine. Every wind a blowin'. The same could be said for Sister Whites writings, which you do wrest to your own destruction in this case Samie. There is no end to the delusions and wild ideas people come up and back them with "proof texts". Surface readers, unable to dig deep enough to discover the gems of truth that lay just under the surface.

Furturists, Feast Keepers, a 144K false theories, 2520 folks, theres a false theory tailored for everyone who wish to come up with some; "new", startling, amazing, intellectually stimulating, theory. That in the end, leaves them feeling quite satisfied and proud of their position, a position they can "prove". Many of the ones I deal with, and I deal with them weekly, are proud they are being "persecuted" for their faith!!!! Theres one behind every bush...

[Ted Oplinger]

Samie,

Sister White has the same view on Atonement as I have, brother. By accusing me of a false doctrine you accuse her, too.

I come across this statement all the time, Samie - mostly by those who don't want to have their positions scrutinized too closely. Such a statement is usually made in the attempt to intimidate people from questioning a stated position. It usually doesn't work here...

Just a point...

[Samie]

Samie says, "Sister White has the same view on Atonement as I have,,,"

No, she doesn't! She never changed her views on the atonement, she only added, built up, additional detail. Thats what prophets have always done, build on the foundation of truth that came before them.

Bro. Club,

I presented proof of what I say that Sister White has changed her position in her view on the issue of Atonement. The publication, the page, the year published. Why not post a presentation showing how Sister White could have not changed her view despite her saying a perfect Atonement was made when Christ offered Himself on the cross 52 years after she recommended Crozier's work saying there was no atonement made at Calvary? There is a world of difference between "there was no atonement made at Calvary" and "there was atonement made at Calvary", don't you think so, brother?

[Samie]

Samie,

Originally Posted By: Samie

Sister White has the same view on Atonement as I have, brother. By accusing me of a false doctrine you accuse her, too.

I come across this statement all the time, Samie - mostly by those who don't want to have their positions scrutinized too closely. Such a statement is usually made in the attempt to intimidate people from questioning a stated position. It usually doesn't work here...

Just a point...

Thanks for your comment, Ted, in my post to Club. But I have posted a reply to your previous post. You have not yet completely addressed that reply I posted here, brother. You have all the time to scrutinize my position. That's what I am hoping you to do. But why address my post in response to Club who does not want to use Scriptures but insist on Sister White says this and that in defense of his position?

Question my position and I will defend it using the Bible and the Bible alone. Are you ready to do it, brother? And can you likewise defend your position using Scriptures alone?

The latest reply you posted did not show where in Scriptures does it say Christ came as a common priest, an issue you want brought up. Instead you are questioning why Christ seemed to have not functioned as a High Priest would. With that, I ask: Do you believe as I do that Christ was High Priest on earth?

In Christ,

Samie

[ClubV12]

Samie asks, "Why not post a presentation showing how Sister White could have not changed her view?"

For the same reason Jesus didn't answer the Jewish leaders who asked Him by what authority He spoke. John the Baptist had answered that question already, since they rejected his counsel, Jesus had nothing more to say that could help them.

The details of the atonement, how it began, when it began, where it was taking place, where it is taking place now, how it will end, are all provided in this thread. Details that Crozier, Ellen White, the bible and various members of this web site all agree on. Details the Seventh-day Adventist Church recognize as pillars of the faith and the sanctuary message. There is nothing more anyone can offer you Samie.

"Proof", I hear that word a lot. As recently as last week in Church. A person who refuses to join the Adventist Church because she thinks it's Babylon, wanted me to "prove" her wrong. She offered "proof" of her position, citing many Sister White quotes. It's a word many with false theories employ.

[Samie]

Samie asks, "Why not post a presentation showing how Sister White could have not changed her view?"

For the same reason Jesus didn't answer the Jewish leaders who asked Him by what authority He spoke. John the Baptist had answered that question already, since they rejected his counsel, Jesus had nothing more to say that could help them.

[ClubV12]

Samie says, "...were all superseded by what Sister White said in 1899 and 1901".

I understand, and sympathize, that is the way you see it. Many of us, along with the Church, do not concur with your position.

[Samie]

Samie says, "...were all superseded by what Sister White said in 1899 and 1901".

I understand, and sympathize, that is the way you see it. Many of us, along with the Church, do not concur with your position.

That's precisely the reason why I am asking why despite knowing Sister White had turned around 180 degrees from her previous position regarding Atonement you still desperately hang on to what Crozier had written.

[ClubV12]

I know, I know, it's very frustrating for you when people don't see things exactly as you would like them too. Again, you have my sympathies. Where you see Sister White (Auntie Ellen, as I like to call her) in an "apparent contradiction", I see perfect harmony in her earlier and later statements on this subject.

[Kevin H]

I would not say that she made a 180 degree, but she did grow and ClubV12 and I often have different views.

Now when Mrs. White agreed with someone, such as Crozier, it did not mean that she agreed with every jot and tittle. For example she wrote some things on the daily, when she was older she discussed this with Elder A. G. Daniels, on how there was a major principle that she saw in what was said, but that she did not have any light about their specific view of the daily and had no opinion on that part of her endorsement. The first group of her visions were to tell us not to give up the Millerite experience, to understand that it was indeed lead by God and that something did happen in the mid 1800s that she ties to Miller's study to point us towards. She would thus agree with Crosier and recommend studying what he said since he was indeed within the ball park. As to the specifics that you and ClubV12 are focused on, that falls outside of what Mrs. White said was what she was shown and in a field where she would be a bit more flexible and encourage us to study.

It is interesting to study what she actually has to say, and what she does NOT say.

Now, one confusion is that we as Christians have two different definitions of atonement that we are working with.

To the Reformers Atonement meant what it takes to get us into heaven. That is of course what Jesus did on the cross.

On the other hand we have the Hebrew idea and word "Kippur" which is usually translated as either Atonement or Judgment. A paraphrase of how that word would be defined is ANYTHING God does that is special, that if we accept will be a blessing and deepen our relationship with him, and is a curse to those who reject it.

The first act of atonement was when the very first created being opened it's eyes and saw the creator. The last act of atonement will occur when we know everything that there is to know about God and there is absolutely no way our relationship with God can be even deeper. In other words, we will never have final atonement.

When we talk about Atonement we can either take the one view which is one time only, at the cross. However we need to be fair to the Bible and the Biblical word "Kippur" in which there are multiple acts of atonement and they will continue through out eternity. Mrs. White is aware of both uses of the word. We tend not to be and thus get confused

[Samie]

I know, I know, it's very frustrating for you when people don't see things exactly as you would like them too. Again, you have my sympathies. Where you see Sister White (Auntie Ellen, as I like to call her) in an "apparent contradiction", I see perfect harmony in her earlier and later statements on this subject.

It is frustrating for you perhaps, but not for me, brother. I like to give you more rope; just don't hang yourself with it.

I am really amused that despite being convinced that indeed Sister White had wrote the statement that when Christ offered Himself on the cross, "a perfect atonement was made" yet you chose to read it as "no atonement was made on the cross". How true is the adage: "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still".

Have a good day, Bro. Club.

[ClubV12]

I see your point Kevin, your seeing another facet of this gem of truth! I like it.

I don't see that either statement by Sister White, in 1846 or later in the 1890's take anything away from Croziers original position. In '46 this was certainly a HUGE topic of discussion. I believe they got the foundation right, right from the start on this subject. They expanded their understanding, brought to light more facets of the gem, but I don't see any cracks in the foundation from day one. Of course, many do, thats always been the case, the sanctuary message has been under attack for over a century! It has confused and baffled some of the greatest minds this Church has seen, like Dr. Ford.

Earlier I used the example of a race, that still holds. Before Jesus could begin His work in the sanctuary, He needed to ascend to His Father and confirm the sacrafice was acceptable. He HAD won the race, no question there. Many profound truths came to light at that moment of death on the cross for the heavenly beings and what it meant to mankind. The results needed to be officially recognized before He entered the sanctuary and actually begin His work as High Priest. Which Crozier noted as being some kind of work we don't fully understand the nature of. Thats still true, but as Sister White grew in her knowledge, we get a little more of the details involved in that work and it's beauty.

[Samie]

I would not say that she made a 180 degree, but she did grow and ClubV12 and I often have different views.

Obviously, Sister White was referring to the same definition of atonement, when she endorsed Crozier's "no atonement was made on the cross" and when 52 years later she made the statement "a perfect atonement was made on the cross". This is why I said she made a 180 degree.