Atonement - when?

[Samie]

God had reconciled the world to Himself, through Christ. He had attached us all, Jews and Gentiles, Christians and non-Christians alike, to the body of His Son. The intent is to reconcile both Jews and Gentiles to God:

NIV Ephesians 2:16 and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.

When Christ the Head died, we, His body died, prompting Paul to exclaim that he was crucified with Christ (Gal 2:20). The death that Christ died was for every man:

KJV Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

That death reconciled us all to God:

KJV Romans 5:10 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.

That death washed us clean from all sin.

KJV Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood

This notion of being cleansed from sin through the death of Christ is the same notion embodied in the antitypical day of atonement depicted in Leviticus 16, the primary objective of which is cleansing the people from their sins.

Leviticus 16:30 For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD.

The above verse tells us atonement is cleansing people from sin. Reconciliation, being necessitated by separation because of sin, results when that which separates is removed. Therefore, Reconciliation comes AFTER sin is removed; after man had been cleansed from sin; after atonement had been done.

Scriptures say we were reconciled to God through the death of Christ and it necessarily follows that reconciliation had been done, consummated when Christ died, because that death cleansed us all from sin and Atonement is cleansing from sin. Therefore Atonement was consummated at the cross, because unless man had been cleansed from sin, reconciliation cannot occur!!!

In Christ,

Samie

[ClubV12]

There are many reasons I see a growth in Sister Whites expansion of the atonement doctrine, but I won't labor the point. Notably, Desire of Ages demonstrates growth or expansion on the details, absent from earlier statements.

"We also read that tins (SINS, I presume you meant) will "stand on record in the sanctuary until the final atonement [in 1844.]" I assume these are YOUR brackets for "in 1844" and I assume you mean that is when the work began. As to when anyones sins are actually blotted out, we don't know. We DO know that soon, none know how soon, the work will move from the dead, to the living.

"Though both of these figures are doubtless incomplete, it is evident that one cannot accept one set of statements and reject the other if they were to arrive at truth." Concerning the dual roll of the atonement, it's a good analysis.

"He (the student) will find that the Father bowed before the cross 'in recognition of its perfection' ". I've wondered about that, this act of the Father bowing, when, where. Was it directly to His Son following His ascension? Or should we see it as a figure of speech? Either way, I'm reluctant to even mention it because it may be to Holy, to sacred for man to even dwell on. But what a picture of a loving, humble Father, bowing to His Son. That is SO beautiful. I can see Jesus doing that, and having seen Jesus, have we not seen the Father? Glory to His name!

I'm not a huge fan of Andreason, I realize some folks are. I do tend to treat his work with a careful eye and a lack of complete confidence. Much of that depends on what he wrote, said or did in particular years of his life. But I could say the same for many a good man, A.T. Jones comes to mind. A great man, used of God, but in later life, I adamantly disagree with some of his views. Kellogg is another, there are more, but this should not take away from the time God used them in powerful ways.

[Samie]

...

The first set of statements says that the atonement was made on the cross; the other says that the final atonement was made 1800 years later. I have found seven statements that the atonement was made on the cross; I have twenty-two statements that the final atonement was made in heaven. Though both of these figures are doubtless incomplete, it is evident that one cannot accept one set of statements and reject the other if they were to arrive at truth.

...

Hi Bro. Jackson;

Relative to the two sets of statements, can you please provide the latest dates when Sister White wrote those statements? One date for the first set and another one for the second set would suffice.

I ask because of this scenario: If someone said sometime in 1980 he believes the earth is flat, and then in 2010 he proclaims the earth is a spheroid then dies in 2013, it is not incorrect to conclude he believes the earth is a spheroid prior to his death. What is incorrect is the conclusion that prior to his death he believes the earth is both flat and a spheroid at the same time.

Thanks, brother.

In Christ,

Samie

[Samie]

...

Atonement complete at the cross leads to all kinds of inconsistencies. For example here are a few:

1. Why the Day of Atonement can come before Pentecost

2 Why, if Christ completed atonement at the cross is He said to be our minister of the Heavenly Sanctuary

2. What use does the Holy Place (First Apartment) have in Christ's Heavenly ministry

3 How Christ can cleanse the Heavenly Sanctuary in a final atonement in AD 30 when almost 2000 years of confessed and forsaken sins have been sent there since His ascension.

4. How the final atonement can precede the judgment, by 2000 years or more

5 Who is the scapegoat upon whom all sins are placed , and where is the wilderness to which he is driven. When does this occur?

I will answer based on Scriptures each of your SIX (6) questions, but I will reserve my answer to question #1 until after I receive your explanation on what is your take on why atonement cannot come before Pentecost.

Q2a. Why, if Christ completed atonement at the cross is He said to be our minister of the Heavenly Sanctuary

Answer: Scriptures explicitly say the reason why: He was raised for our justification.

Romans 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Let me elucidate: Why was He delivered for our offenses?

Scriptures say that sin separated us from God. Being separate from God we are spiritually dead (Eph 2:1). As the physically dead cannot do any physical act, in like manner, the spiritually dead cannot do anything good like believing, repenting, etc. (Jer 13:23). Left to ourselves, we can do NOTHING to extricate ourselves from our dire condition. God knowing we can do NOTHING unless attached to His Son, sent His Son to this world, to give it life (John 6:33).

The law requires the sinner's life to pay for his own sin (Rom 6:23). But if man pays with his own life, he would have paid for the sin God hates, but God would have eternally lost the sinner He loves. On the cross, God made a way so that man can pay for sins committed and at the same time be given hope of eternal life. On the cross, God made a new man: Christ the Head, humanity - Jews & Gentiles - the Body. The intent is to reconcile both Jews & Gentiles to God (Eph 2:11-19).

When the Head died, the Body died likewise (2 Cor 5:14, 15), and all sins - past, present, future - were forgiven (Col 2:13, 14), and in the process, washed us all clean from sin (Rev 1:5). When the Head resurrected, we were resurrected together with Him (Eph 2:4-5), born again to a living hope (1 Pet 1:3), ready to live the life of an overcomer (Rom 12:21), led by the Holy Spirit(Rom 8:14; Phil 2:13) under the terms of the New Covenant (Heb 10:16). Having been made alive, we can now believe, repent, decide to be baptized, etc., and do that which the Head wants the Body to do (Eph 2:10). We are able to do that which the Body wants because we are attached to Him Who is our Strength (Phil 4:13).

When we commit any sin, the sin currently committed having been forgiven on the cross, is not imputed against us (2 Cor 5:18, 19). In fact, God had said He will remember our sins no more (Heb 10:17).

The act of not imputing any sin currently committed is Christ's act of continually justifying man, as per Biblical statement that Christ was raised for our justification because He is the propitiation for sins committed (1 John 2:1, 2). As High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary, he ever liveth to make intercession for us (Heb 7:25), justifying us whenever we commit any sin so that sin cannot have dominion over us anymore (Rom 6:14). We are then not burdened with sin in our lifetime as we fight the good fight of faith (1 Tim 6:12), and become overcomers in the end for only overcomers will not be blotted out from the book of life (Rev 3:5). When Christ returns to reward every man according to what each has done, the overcomers will be rewarded with life eternal; all others will suffer the wrath of God and finally, thrown into the lake of fire (Rom 2:5-8; Rev 21:27; Rev 20:15).

Will tackle the next question on my next post... But if you want anything clarified first, you can ask any question relative to the answer I gave.

In Christ,

Samie

[Samie]

2b. What use does the Holy Place (First Apartment) have in Christ's Heavenly ministry

Answer: The Bible is silent on this. What the Bible expressly says is that when Christ ascended to Heaven, He went straight to the Most Holy Place and ministered for us there.

That He went straight to the Most Holy Place is evidenced by the following Biblical basis:

First:

Mark 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

The throne of the Father is in the Most Holy Place, between the covering cherubs (2 Samuel 6:2). To sit down at the right hand of the throne of God in heaven is sitting where God's throne is: in the Most Holy Place.

Second:

At the time the book of Hebrews was written, Jesus has already entered within the veil.

KJV Hebrews 6:19-20 19 Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; 20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

The phrase "within the veil" refers to the Most Holy Place or the Holy of Holies:

NASB Exodus 26:33 "And you shall hang up the veil under the clasps, and shall bring in the ark of the testimony there within the veil; and the veil shall serve for you as a partition between the holy place and the holy of holies.

Leviticus 16:12-15 12 And he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the LORD, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the vail: 13 And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the LORD, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is upon the testimony, that he die not: 14 And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward; and before the mercy seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times. 15 Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:

Leviticus 16 tackles Yum Kippur services at the Most Holy Place. The verses above tells us plainly that these services were done "within the vail" where the mercy seat and the ark of testimony are located. The author of Hebrews records long before 1844 that Christ has already entered within the vail or the Most Holy Place, where He sat down at the right hand of the throne of God in heaven.

In Christ,

Samie

[Samie]

Question #3: How Christ can cleanse the Heavenly Sanctuary in a final atonement in AD 30 when almost 2000 years of confessed and forsaken sins have been sent there since His ascension.

(Let me just point out that Scriptures indicate Christ died in AD 31, not in AD 30. I could provide Biblical basis if asked to. Off-topic in this thread.)

Answer: There is no Biblical record that sins are sent to heaven, a place where nothing that defiles could enter.

NKJV Revelation 21:27 But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles ...

That sins are recorded in heaven does not sit well with what the Bible says. Why would God keep a record of sins He said He won't remember (Heb 10:17)? They say, the record is not for God, but for us. Will God Who has cleansed us from all sin want His children to remember that which He chose to forget?

No, there are no sins sent to heaven. A complete atonement had been done in Calvary.

In Christ,

Samie

[Samie]

Question #4: How the final atonement can precede the judgment, by 2000 years or more

Answer: Of course, it is a necessity for atonement to precede judgment, rather than judge first then atone.

As pointed out in my answer to question #2a, atonement, which is cleansing from sin, caused our reconciliation. We were attached to the body of Christ, made spiritually alive, enabled to do the will of God and overcome all evil. If in his lifetime, a man is an overcomer, his name will not be blotted out from the book of life, where his name was written before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4; Rev 13:8). If he is not an overcomer, then his name will be blotted out. Judgment to blot or not comes AFTER a man dies:

Hebrews 9:27 ... it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment

While alive, there's hope of becoming an overcomer. Attached to Christ Who is our Strength, it is not a question of inability, but refusal to overcome.

In Christ,

Samie

[Green Cochoa]

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

Samie,

Your "apparent contradiction" makes a false assumption in order to create it. There would be no contradiction, even to appearances, if one were to but consider one further time element.

It is this: When does the Father speak?

I would submit that the Father speaks saying "It is enough. The Atonement is complete." at the time that Jesus presents His atonement before the Father (so that He can "behold" it, or consider it). There is nothing in Mrs. White's statement that compels me to believe the Father gives this utterance at the time of the Cross. Even if it seemed clear that He had, many things spoken by God are for future fulfillment. For example, what did the Father say at Jesus' baptism? Why was God "well pleased" before the life was lived and the atonement made?

So there is no contradiction here.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Samie]

Question #5: Who is the scapegoat upon whom all sins are placed, and where is the wilderness to which he is driven. When does this occur?

Answer: Our Lord & Savior Jesus Christ, the Supreme Offering for sin, is the scapegoat; the wilderness is death; it occurred when He offered Himself and died on the cross.

Biblical basis:

Christ as scapegoat, the sin-bearer:

As High Priest officiating at Yum Kippur, Aaron was instructed to get TWO male goats for a sin offering.

Leviticus 16:5 5 "And he shall take from the congregation of the sons of Israel two male goats for a sin offering and one ram for a burnt offering.

The two goats will both be presented before the Lord (v7). The casting of lots (v8) naturally indicates that the two goats are both fit to be the offering and the scapegoat. If the lot fell on goat #1 to be the offering, then goat #2 becomes the scapegoat, and vice versa.

If, as claimed, Satan is the scapegoat, then the lot merely fell on him; he could have been the sin offering had the lot fell on Christ to be the scapegoat, as in the case of the two goats.

The scapegoat will bear all the iniquities of the people (v22). Scripture records that Christ is our sin-bearer, NOT Satan. There is not a single verse in all Scriptures that hints at Satan being the sin-bearer.

Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

NASB 1 Peter 2:24 and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

Death as wilderness.

Leviticus 16:21-22 21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: 22 And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.

The verse above describes wilderness to where the goat was led as a land not inhabited, a land where no one dwells.

Jeremiah 2:5-6 5 Thus saith the LORD, What iniquity have your fathers found in me, that they are gone far from me, and have walked after vanity, and are become vain? 6 Neither said they, Where is the LORD that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, that led us through the wilderness, through a land of deserts and of pits, through a land of drought, and of the shadow of death, through a land that no man passed through, and where no man dwelt?

The phrase "shadow of death" in the verse above tells us death is present, otherwise there is no shadow. Death is where no man lives or dwells. Death is a land no one inhabits. It is the wilderness to where the goat was led by a fit man.

Yes, the scapegoat is Christ our sin-bearer Who led Himself to the wilderness of death when as High Priest He offered Himself on the cross as Supreme Sacrifice to save us all from sin and secure a perfect atonement to reconcile us all to God.

In Christ,

Samie

[Kevin H]

There is a lot said that is correct as far as it goes, but too much "Either/Or" thinking. There is a lot of like arguing over whether Jesus was Wholly God or wholly man? Is God completely just or completely merciful. Does God transcend time and space or live in time and space?

Does a good piece of art have surface or depth? Are the lines curve or straight? Do they have dark or light?

The correct answer to all these questions were "Yes" but some were argued quite a while before realizing that there is a way the two fit together. The Poet/Philosopher Eli Siegel said "All beauty if the making one of opposites"

[Samie]

Samie,

Your "apparent contradiction" makes a false assumption in order to create it. There would be no contradiction, even to appearances, if one were to but consider one further time element.

It is this: When does the Father speak?

I would submit that the Father speaks saying "It is enough. The Atonement is complete." at the time that Jesus presents His atonement before the Father (so that He can "behold" it, or consider it). There is nothing in Mrs. White's statement that compels me to believe the Father gives this utterance at the time of the Cross. Even if it seemed clear that He had, many things spoken by God are for future fulfillment. For example, what did the Father say at Jesus' baptism? Why was God "well pleased" before the life was lived and the atonement made?

So there is no contradiction here.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Hi Bro. Green;

First, the phrase "apparent contradiction" belongs to skyblue888 he used in this post.

Second, you said "There is nothing in Mrs. White's statement that compels me to believe the Father gives this utterance at the time of the Cross." Here is what Sister White wrote:

"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}

So, when did the Father speak "It is enough. The atonement is complete."? According to Sister White, when the Father beheld the sacrifice of His Son. Now, it's really up to you if you don't want to take her words as simply stated.

Third, You said there is no contradiction. That's really up to you as well. On my part, I had for so many times posted why I believe Sister White later in life, held the position that a perfect atonement was made on the cross. And since she wrote that the Father said the atonement made on the cross was complete, there remains no reason to start another atonement in 1844 to complete what the Father declared as already completed on the cross.

In Christ,

Samie

[Kevin H]

Also, I mentioned how we have 2 different uses of the word "Atonement" But while based on the second use, Mrs. White somewhat has a third view:

1. "What does it take to get into heaven?" In which the answer is "What Jesus did on the cross."

2. The idea of the Hebrew word Kippur: the idea that Atonement is anything that God does that teaches us more about him and can deepen our relationship with him. In which case Atonement started when the first creature opened it's eyes and saw it's creator and will not end until we know absolutely everything about God and have the deepest relationship you can possibly have with God (or in other words there were acts of atonement long before sin entered and will continue long after sin is over)

3. Mrs. White uses the word for the highlights of the great controversy theme: the great controversy is the historical facts about the development, history and resolution of sin.

Unfortunately we want only one definition for the word and want to read that one definition in every usage of the word. We are too lazy to ask "How is it used by this person? What is the point they are trying to bring up by this?" Instead we arrogantly read in our definition and scratch our heads saying "This does not make sense, therefore it must be wrong."

Another example is with the scapegoat: The correct exegeses is that God will take care of our sins sending them away from us as far as the east is from the west. The others are APPLICATIONS of this truth to understanding what happens in how God takes care of our sins to send them as far away from us as the east is from the west.

On the one hand our sins are removed from us by what Jesus did for us bearing our sins in the wilderness temptations, in the garden, in the prisons and on the cross. When John the Baptist said "Behold the lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world!" it can also be translated "Behold the lamb of God who scapegoats the sins of the world!"

On the other hand, when we talk about the issue of the Great Controversy that sin originated in Lucifer, that Lucifer plays a part in our sins, that Lucifer refuses to allow Jesus to bear his sins, and Lucifer will therefore meet the results for the roles that he played and with his death sin will not rise up again. Then it is correct to apply the scapegoat to him realizing that he was responsible for the sin issue.

To understand some as Satan's role as scapegoat: How many people did Hitler kill? None that I know of, yet he is responsible for over 6,000,000 deaths that is applied to him. How many did Charlie Manson kill? None, yet he is in prison for murder for his responsibility in the murders. So Jesus bore our sins for us, but Satan still bears his responsibility (which Jesus was willing to bear for him but Lucifer refuses to allow Jesus to do).

[ClubV12]

It's a small wonder a study of the sanctuary has tripped up so many great minds. It's a beautiful study and I think it will continue in heaven as we contemplate the mysteries of the plan of salvation for eons to come.

[Ted Oplinger]

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.

Oh, you mean in the typification in the Day of Atonement, where the High Priest took off his High Priestly garments, and ministered before God garbed as a common priest (Leviticus 16:4-23) - typifying the day would Christ our High Priest minister not just as God the Son, but also as Son of Man, and ministers before God in the same righteousness as we must - in the Antitypical Day of Atonement?

That answer? Dovetails quite nicely with what I said before.

[Ted Oplinger]

Samie, regarding your posts 670485, 670492, and 670495 - you really haven't but superficially studied the Sanctuary as it was presented in the Bible, have you?

You really do not understand what is going on where in the Old Testament, which typified what God was doing in the realm of the heavenly Sanctuary.

Further, with your point to post 670482, where you conclude Christ as the Scapegoat, you take a position contrary to even many non-Adventist scholars. You are taking Canwright's position on the scapegoat, whether you know it or not. Canwright - and his subsequent student Ford - were in error on this point, and you are repeating that error.

Your positions on the Sanctuary and the Atonement suffer from this glaring error.

[ClubV12]

I've been reading Croziers four part series on the sanctuary, slowly, carefully. I thought this point was particularly interesting.

First Curtain; calvary, ascension, acceptance, entering (in that order).

Sins for the individual, on going, daily.

Hebrews 6: (NIV)

19 We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, 20 where our forerunner, Jesus, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 6:19-20

Moved through the second curtain into the Most Holy, 1844.

Sins for the Nation, yearly.

Hebrews 9:3

Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place,

[Samie]

Originally Posted By: Samie

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.

Oh, you mean in the typification in the Day of Atonement, where the High Priest took off his High Priestly garments, and ministered before God garbed as a common priest (Leviticus 16:4-23) ...

Just reminding you, Ted, that in Lev 16:4-22, the High Priest is wearing his High Priestly garments. He only took them off in v23.

[Samie]

Samie, regarding your posts 670485, 670492, and 670495 - you really haven't but superficially studied the Sanctuary as it was presented in the Bible, have you?

You really do not understand what is going on where in the Old Testament, which typified what God was doing in the realm of the heavenly Sanctuary.

Further, with your point to post 670482, where you conclude Christ as the Scapegoat, you take a position contrary to even many non-Adventist scholars. You are taking Canwright's position on the scapegoat, whether you know it or not. Canwright - and his subsequent student Ford - were in error on this point, and you are repeating that error.

Your positions on the Sanctuary and the Atonement suffer from this glaring error.

Ted,

I just wonder why you said my posts, despite being backed up with related Bible verses, suffer from a glaring error in your post that suffers from a total absence of Bible verses.

You know, brother, you will bring home your point with a much greater impact if you provide related Bible verses backing up your claim that my posts are erroneous.

I will be very grateful if you can show me how I could have misapplied, misused or even abused Scriptures in any of my posts.

In Christ,

Samie

[Samie]

I've been reading Croziers four part series on the sanctuary, slowly, carefully. I thought this point was particularly interesting.

First Curtain; calvary, ascension, acceptance, entering (in that order).

Sins for the individual, on going, daily.

Hebrews 6: (NIV)

19 We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, 20 where our forerunner, Jesus, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 6:19-20

Moved through the second curtain into the Most Holy, 1844.

Sins for the Nation, yearly.

Hebrews 9:3

Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place,

Bro. Club,

Sorry to say this, but it appears Crozier had inadvertently misapplied Heb 6:19-20 to refer to the entry of Jesus to the Holy Place only, not to the Holy of Holies or the Most Holy Place.

You used the NIV. In Heb 6:19, what the NIV translated as "inner sanctuary" behind the curtain, where Jesus has entered at His ascension is the Most Holy Place:

NIV 1 Kings 6:16 He partitioned off twenty cubits at the rear of the temple with cedar boards from floor to ceiling to form within the temple an inner sanctuary, the Most Holy Place.

We all know that the ark of the covenant is in the Most Holy Place. The NIV tells us that the ark of the covenant is in the "inner sanctuary".

NIV 1 Kings 6:19 He prepared the inner sanctuary within the temple to set the ark of the covenant of the LORD there.

The "inner sanctuary" where the ark of the covenant is located is the Most Holy Place:

NIV Hebrews 9:3-4 3 Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4 which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant.

Therefore, Heb 6:19-20 just like Heb 9:3, refers to the Most Holy Place.

In Christ,

Samie

[ClubV12]

The problem with your interpretation, a problem you consistently have, is that you fail to see the fabric of the big picture. By your narrow applications of a verse, two at most, your focused on a thread here or there.

Crosiers interpretation of the veil being the first of two veils, thus being the first apartment is consistent and fits beautifully with the big picture of the sanctuary. He's not relying on one or two verses, he applies the logic of "here a little, there a little". You keep asking for "a" verse, which you then twist and wrest to your own destruction.

By building ones doctrine on one or two verses you end up with "proof texts" to support all manner of false doctrine. Secondarily, by rejecting the inspired testimonies of the prophet that help bring clairity to the word your anchor is no different than what a Baptist, Methodist, Catholic or any other "daughter of the beast" has. You have no anchor!

There are over a 1,000 Christian denominations, all with various views on this or that doctrine. Your views are simply another voice within this Babylon of confusion. Why should I pay any more attention to your views, than to my Baptist bible teaching neighbor? He too has "proof texts", he to is absolutely convinced his interpretations are correct. He sincerely believes in the rapture! You sincerely believe Jesus entered the Most Holy place at the cross. In both cases, you have no anchor, your easily blown around by every wind of doctrine and come up with these "cunningly devised fables". Just like Mormons do.

You are taking a very narrow view of the definition of "sanctuary". It is much more than a Holy and Most Holy. It also has a court, surrounded by a wall. One can enter the sanctuary simply by stepping into the court! The inner sanctuary includes two compartments. One must be careful to ascertain what referrence to the sanctuary is being employed in any given verse.

[Samie]

Bro. Club,

Happy Sabbath. You don't have to get mad at a brother who is just pointing out where you erred. And I provided the verses that PROVE you are misapplying Heb 6:19 as referring to the first compartment. I did not interpret the verses. I just showed them to you. I did not wrest any of the verses. It appears you are the one guilty of wresting them.

Did you never ask your Baptist neighbor for even a single proof-verse for his Sunday-keeping while showing him Exo. 20:8-11, etc. for our Sabbath-keeping? Has he produced even a single verse? None. His inability to give you one verse proving his point is not unlike your own inability in the issue at hand.

Just an illustration;

"inner sanctuary" (NIV Heb 6:19) = "Most Holy Place" (based on NIV 1 Kings 6:16). This is not interpretation. Just comparing Scripture with Scripture, "here a little, there a little".

"inner sanctuary" (NIV Heb 6:19) = "Holy Place", the first compartment (based on Crozier's interpretation, none from Scriptures). "nothing here, nothing there".

Of the two, the former is the better choice, isn't it?

In Christ,

Samie

[ClubV12]

If my neighbor would like to study the rapture issue, I would study with him. I won't and have not asked for a "verse" over the fence because it is a complex subject.

As is the sanctuary, a "verse" or two, won't provide the answer. In considering HOW a verse should be interpreted one has to consider the golden chain of truth that applies to the question.

Holy Place or Most Holy Place? At some point you will have to deal with Daniel on this issue. You will need to be consistent with Daniels prophecies. Specifically, the 2,300 year prophecy which is intimately linked to the sanctuary and 1844. Can't get around it. You will have to come up with a different explanation for the termination of that prophecy. There are many ways to do this, people have done it, still doing it, but it must be done! Seventh-day Adventists have the correct understanding of Daniels 2,300 year prophecy and how it terminates in the three angels message.

EVERYBODY ELSE IS WRONG, period, as no one else bears this message to a dieing world.

Mad? Not at all. Straight truth? Absolutely! Your doctrine is false Samie, you've been fighting the Church directly for many years. Your delusions are growing darker, more disturbing on a number of issues.

[Samie]

Your madness is showing, Bro. Club. You can't hide it. It manifests itself in your 'kind' words and at the same time from that same mouth proclaim you have the truth.

You brought up Dan 8. Do you want to know that cleansing in v14 is not from the same Hebrew word for cleansing in Lev 16?

[ClubV12]

Some folks thought Jesus was mad when He told the woman at the well, "Salvation is of the Jews". She was of the Samaritan religion, similiar to Jewish religion but with different doctrine. What Jesus was saying, she understood, her "Church" was wrong, she needed to come out of it. she had to come to the Jewish religion to find the truth, to find the true Messiah.

THAT, my friend, IS the third angels message! "Come out of her my people".

A study of Daniel is fundamental to a study of the sanctuary. I know of no other Church, not one, that has a correct view of Daniels prophecy. In that regard, salvation is of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. If you want to find the truth this is the Church you must come to to find that instruction. In the same way the woman at the well had to.

[Samie]

Bro. Club,

Your error of thought is showing, brother. Trying to escape from being shown your error in interpreting Heb 6:19, you bring up Dan 8. Well, at least you have tried to escape. And escape you did. From the pan to the fire.

Again, Happy Sabbath. Will have to go out that door in time for Sabbath Services with our Divine Master.

In Christ,

Samie