Christ’s Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary # 24

[8thdaypriest]

10 minutes ago, Samie said:

So how can one have the power to RESPOND when NOT PLUGGED IN to the ONLY Source of Power?

6 minutes ago, Samie said:

 

Already answered - many times.

[8thdaypriest]

I see no NEW arguments.  Just ones we have already answered many times. 

Bye for now.

[Samie]

2 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

God "calls those things which are not, as though they are".  God foresaw the redeemed - those who would be "born again" - who would "overcome" . 

The death of Christ "once for all" covered "all" who would ultimately come to Him.  It did NOT cover those who would ultimately refuse Him.  Because - if it did - then God cannot refuse eternal life, for anyone. 

We've already addressed the "died with Him".  It means died LIKE Him - died to the selfish desires of the carnal man.  It doesn't mean that they died literally at the same moment in time.  

And by the way, concerning the "one body", "we were all baptized into one body" (1Co 12:13 NAU).  We become part of the body of Christ - BY baptism.  We were NOT physically born already IN that "body".  The "body" consists of those who have been "baptized". 

So, a few seconds BEFORE you were baptized, were you among the ALL?

[Samie]

Just now, 8thdaypriest said:

I see no NEW arguments.  Just ones we have already answered many times. 

Bye for now.

You can come back anytime, once you have the direct answers, Rachel.

[Samie]

While Rachel is out hunting for direct answer to my questions, I'll prepare for Sabbath worship services.  See you later, folks.  Happy Sabbath.

[Samie]

8 hours ago, jackson said:

Samie, Please stop beating a dead horse. You have been given enough scriptures to  show that neither Paul nor anyone else was/is born in Christ.

Again, which Scriptures? Give me even one, please.  If Paul was not born in Christ, he can NEVER be in Christ according to your erroneous doctrine.

1.  When one is born NOT in Christ, he is born APART from Him.

2.  Apart from Christ, man cannot bear fruit because only those in Christ can bear fruit.

3.  If one cannot bear fruit, he cannot have faith because faith is fruit of the Spirit.

4.  If one cannot have faith, he cannot believe because faith is needed to believe.

5.  If he cannot believe, then according to your false teaching, he cannot be in Christ.

Therefore any one born NOT in Christ can NEVER be in Christ, as sung by your trio while driving a cart-driven-horse.

 

[Samie]

8 hours ago, jackson said:

To make Paul fit your doctrine you even had the audacity to exclaim that Paul didn't  really mean that he wasn't in Christ before he came into Christ. You had to correct him so that  a sincere reader of scripture should not  take him at his word. He contradicted your doctrine and you could not abide that.

Oh, oh.  Where's my post that reflects what you are accusing me of, brother?  And you know on whose side an accuser of a brother is, don't you, jackson?  If you can't defend your erroneous concoctions, don't resort to false accusation that I corrected Paul, brother.  Where's that post?  If there's none, then why resort to lying?

[Stan]

@samie your rudeness is about to get your voted off the island.

[8thdaypriest]

Was Christ's death substitutionary? 

Did Jesus literally take upon Himself OUR death? 

I've been asking myself that question. 

First:  The LORD said, "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son." (Eze 18:20 NKJ).  If Jesus IS our "everlasting father" then He should not "bear the guilt of" His "sons" or brothers.  So executing Jesus for our sins was NOT LEGAL, unless the Law somehow does not apply in the case of Jesus.  

Second:  IF Christ's death was substitutionary, and He died FOR all mankind, then the penalty has been paid, for ALL mankind.  I don't think that fits.  We've been debating that for pages and pages. 

Third:  In Tabernacle imagery, the sin offering and the priest carried only confessed sin.  [They actually carried a record of the confession.] Rebellious sin, which was never confessed with repentance, was NOT CARRIED either by the sin offering, or by the priest, or by the Lord's goat (on the day of atonement).  I might add that sins of ignorance WERE confessed by the priest who then offered the morning/evening sacrifice.  So they were carried.   Which fits with Jesus statement, "IF you were blind, you would have no sin."  

Fourth: 

Meanings of the word “FOR”

Christ died FOR "the world".  "For" someone, can MEAN "in order to help" someone (service), OR it can mean "in place of" someone (a substitution).

If I say, "Joe died FOR his country."  It means - in order to help his country.

But - if I say "Joe took the wrap FOR his son", that MEANS Joe actually substituted himself, in place of His son.

If "for" (in the case of Christ) means "in place of" - then NO PUNISHMENT should be executed upon any man.  God put the punishment on Jesus, therefore there's no punishment left for any man.  The penalty (DEATH) was paid, for "all sin" for "all time".  If God accepts substitutes, then HE would be obligated to forgive ALL MANKIND.  That's Universalism, and does not agree with those not "saved" being consigned to the "lake of fire".  

The substitution theory doesn't work.   It's nice imagery.  It's sweet words for songs and sermons.  But it does not appear to be LAWFUL.

Convicts are not released IF someone else agrees to serve out the rest of their sentence.  And humans are not given eternal life, BECAUSE Jesus was executed "in our place".  

I think "in our place" is a way of saying that we would have died eternally, had He not died.  THAT was not substitution.  It was service.  

I'm still processing this.  I may change my mind. 

Your thoughts please.  And support from Bible only - please. 

Rachel

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

6 hours ago, Stan said:

If you receive benefit to being here please help out with expenses.

I do.

[Stan]

32 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I do.

And you are one of the few, it gives me a lot of satisfaction when this is meaningful enough to members that they help defray costs. 

Thanks again so 'MUCH!

[JoeMo]

On 5/12/2017 at 1:50 PM, Samie said:

None, maybe.  Is that your basis to determine what is truth?

It's a good indication. A wise man named Gamaliel once said,

"And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:

³⁹ But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God. (Acts 5:38-39).

When people flock to your theology, I will reconsider it.  Until then ...

[JoeMo]

On 5/12/2017 at 1:50 PM, Samie said:

None, maybe.  Is that your basis to determine what is truth?

It's a good indication. A wise man named Gamaliel once said,

"And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:

³⁹ But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God. (Acts 5:38-39).

When people flock to your theology, I will reconsider it.  Until then ...

[JoeMo]

On 5/12/2017 at 1:50 PM, Samie said:

None, maybe.  Is that your basis to determine what is truth?

It's a good indication. A wise man named Gamaliel once said,

"And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:

³⁹ But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God. (Acts 5:38-39).

When people flock to your theology, I will reconsider it.  Until then ...

[JoeMo]

On 5/12/2017 at 1:50 PM, Samie said:

None, maybe.  Is that your basis to determine what is truth?

It's a good indication. A wise man named Gamaliel once said,

"And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:

³⁹ But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God. (Acts 5:38-39).

When people flock to your theology, I will reconsider it.  Until then ...

[JoeMo]

On 5/12/2017 at 1:50 PM, Samie said:

None, maybe.  Is that your basis to determine what is truth?

It's a good indication. A wise man named Gamaliel once said,

"And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:

³⁹ But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God. (Acts 5:38-39).

When people flock to your theology, I will reconsider it.  Until then ...

[JoeMo]

Sorry about the repetitious post. My computer was momentarily possessed.

[phkrause]

11 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Sorry about the repetitious post. My computer was momentarily possessed.

No your not!! hahahahahaha!! Just kidding! I hate when that happens.

[8thdaypriest]

Shalom Jackson.  Blessed Sabbath.

Thank you for continuing this discussion.  I had already mulled over in my mind, most of the things you last posted. 

My understanding of "propitiation" is:  a place or a means of reconciliation

We know that God is not reconciled to us.  We are reconciled to Him. 

The death of Christ - our understanding of it and belief in it, changes our minds - not God's.

So - it's NOT like God accepts Christ's death, in place of ours.   And to say it "satisfies the Law" just muddies the waters, because God is the source of "the Law".  

The word translated as "atonement" is also translated as "reconciliation".   When atonement is made for the sinner, He is reconciled to God.  Believers are actually called to me "ministers of reconciliation".

In the Tabernacle prophecy:  The priest made atonement for the transgressor by carrying the record of the confession (with repentance) into the Tabernacle, either by means of blood, or by means of eating a portion of the sin offering and then entering the Tabernacle. 

I think we can easily agree that Jesus - as our High Priest, carries a record of our confession/repentance before the throne of God in Heaven.  But who is changed by this?  Not God.  

Perhaps this confession w. repentance gives Jesus the legal right to protect and strengthen these people, because they are now legally registered as "His own sheep".  Jesus can legally claim them - thus limiting the access/control of them by Evil Ones.  I like THAT idea.  In the NT, we eat "the bread" and drink the "wine", and we are "baptized".  All register our desire to be reconciled to God. 

What was the role of the Lamb?  The priest could not carry the record of the confessed sin, without the blood (or meat) of the lamb.    So - was not the BLOOD also a vehicle to carry the record of the confessed sin? 

The sinner who brought a lamb, and (sincerely) confessed his sins over it's head, was SAYING, "I want to be reconciled to God".  It is this sincere desire, which God "recognizes", and thereby gives Christ legal headship over them. 

The idea that God's LAW demanded the death of the sinner, (or of a perfect substitute) and Jesus death satisfied the LAW, by substituting His death for ours - that idea makes me very uncomfortable.  It just doesn't make sense - at least to me.  

 

[8thdaypriest]

1 hour ago, jackson said:

 

I believe Jesus came to recover the DOMINION that Adam lost.  God gave DOMINION over this earth to mankind - on condition - of perfect obedience.  Adam disobeyed, and the LORD could no longer protect Adam's DOMINION.  Without the Lord's full protection, Adam and all his descendants fell pray to Satan, who wanted to rule the earth. 

Satan was trying to break Jesus, to get Him to sin against His Father.  Because IF Jesus never sinned, then He would fulfill the one condition for DOMINION, and Satan would loose his dominion over earth and mankind.

Jesus was "obedient unto death striving against sin".  He fulfilled the ONE CONDITION for dominion. 

Daniel 7:14 "Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed. (NKJ)

In the last days Satan exercises his dominion through the BEAST.  In Daniel 7, dominion is taken from the Beast and given to Christ (and the saints who belong to Him).

Back to the sacrifice:

I believe there must be some outward ACT, to demonstrate the inward desire for reconciliation with God.  This ACT - legally - gives Christ the right to claim that person for Himself. 

In the OT - that ACT was confessing one's sin over the head of the sin-offering.  In the NT, the ACT is confessing Christ - through baptism, sincere confession (with intended repentance), eating the Lord's Supper/Passover, teaching the Gospel, etc.   

There is a WAR going on, for human beings.  Satan claiming some for himself.  Christ claiming others for Himself and His kingdom.  Satan already knows his time is short.  His goal in the time remaining, is to keep from Christ as many human beings as he can - just because this wounds Christ and The Father.   The whole persecution of the Beast is all about keeping souls from Christ.  There IS no other purpose. 

 

[8thdaypriest]

1 hour ago, jackson said:

John  1:29    The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. 

Was not the lamb in the sanctuary service a substitute for the sinner?

IF Jesus was a substitute for sinners, then His death really would have taken away all "the sin of the world", and God would "save" the entire world.  This is the Universalist argument.  

The fact that - for the many - their sins are NOT taken away, tells me that Jesus death was NOT a substitute for a world of sinners.  

His death was the only MEANS of atonement/reconciliation.  But a MEANS OF, is not the same thing as A SUBSTITUTE. 

Any human being can avail himself of the MEANS.   Most will not.  

[8thdaypriest]

12 hours ago, jackson said:

A law without punishment for disobedience would be no law at all.

So you believe that God directly PUNISHED Jesus?? 

 

Personally, I believe that Jesus became "cursed" (meaning "devoted to destruction") when God withdrew His protection from His Son. 

Romans 8:32  “God gave Him up for us all.”

The Father treated Jesus as He treats those settled in rebellion. 

Job 22:15-17   “They said to God ‘Depart from us!’  What can the Almighty do?”
    (Speaking of those who lived in the time of Noah's flood)

        NOTE:  The destruction of the City Jerusalem, and the captivity of its people is called “a little wrath” by the Lord.  “I hid My face from you for a moment” (Isaiah 54:7-8).  The Lord continues, “This is like the waters of Noah to me” (v.9) The flood of Noah, like the destruction of Jerusalem, came about because the Lord withdrew His blessing and protection.

I DO NOT believe that Jesus died the "second death".  That is the death from which there is no resurrection. 

You and I have very different views concerning "the second death" and "the lake of fire". 

 

The question here is: Was Jesus death substitutional?  I am not convinced that it was.  Jesus could die "for us" and die to "save us" without His death being "in place of" ours. 

[Gerr]

Just another word of caution.  If you want to know what the SDA Church officially teaches, then look at official publications of the church.  With the exception of Jackson's responses, much of the other responses are at best not mainstream. 

[8thdaypriest]

13 hours ago, jackson said:

Isaiah explains it well:

Isa 53:4   Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.   53:5   But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.                                                                                                     53:10   Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin

Paul agrees:

Heb 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. 

Gal   3:13   Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree:   

 

Does God SUSPEND HIS LAW for those who believe in Jesus? 

OR

Were those who sin on a sure path to death, and then because they turn from that path and receive HEALING from God through Jesus, they are no longer headed for certain death. 

One view makes it about deferred punishment.  The other makes it about healing. 

[8thdaypriest]

6 minutes ago, Gerry Cabalo said:

Just another word of caution.  If you want to know what the SDA Church officially teaches, then look at official publications of the church.  With the exception of Jackson's responses, much of the other responses are at best not mainstream. 

Certainly never claimed to be "mainstream" SDA.  Understand you feel a need to "caution" folks Gerry.  Do you think I should identify myself as non-SDA in my personal info?