Your self indulgent nonsense answer is an answer. Yes or no please, Do you sin anymore at all?
What happened with the cross?The question is in the title. When you consider "atonement", what do you think of in regards to all that Christ has done and is doing to save His people?
Tall, you're not allowing the process to explain itself.
The book of Hebrews doesn't shed light on the day of atonment. In all honesty it doesn't even touch on the subject.
Though books to fill librarys have been written on salvation it seems "atonement" doesn't get a lot of play. First look at the word: at-one-ment. With that in mind read John 17. The intent of the word is to express that God and man be/become at one.
There is value in the effort to wrap our heads around the old Day of Atonement (a time of "judgement") in the yearly Tabernacle services. The intent is not to judge for separation but to judge for who will receive "at-one-ment." Consider that the Tabernacle services were both illustrative and prophetic.
It is apparent that there must be some form of judgement before His 2nd coming - some die, some rise to meet Him. SDA's make a unique and key contribution to Christian thought on where we are living in history. The call to at-one-ment is key to now. We need to find a way to make the opportunity prominent as an unsustainable world approaches it's gruesome end.
Stryder, you gotta be kidding, so I'm laughingTall, you're not allowing the process to explain itself. No one is denying the sufficentcy of the sacrifice of Christ. That's not the issue. On the day of atonement, the service for cleansing the sanctuary, and the people, was not complete until the final burnt offering was made, which was for the atonment of Aaron and the people. The book of Hebrews doesn't shed light on the day of atonment. In all honesty it doesn't even touch on the subject. It speaks of Christ as our new High Priest, who's sacrifice was more sufficent than those of the earthly priests.
You can't say Christ has cleansed the sanctuary, when the process for cleansing the sanctuary, as spelled out in Leviticus 16, hasn't been completed.
Stryder, you gotta be kidding, so I'm laughing. Your eyes are fixed on Lev where the cleansing of the earthly sanctuary is found. As if the heavenly sanctuary is to pattern after the earthly. That's why I will not follow your lead.
Hebrews explains repeatedly that the pattern shown in Leviticus was for the earthly sanctuary not the heavenly.
Incorrect:
Heb 9:6 These preparations having thus been made, the priests go regularly into the first section, performing their ritual duties,
Heb 9:7 but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people.
I think even you would admit this is a direct reference to the Day of Atonement, referring to the type.
This is referenced at the beginning of Chapter 9, which then goes on to relate more about how Jesus fulfilled various sacrifices, including the inauguration, including the ratifying of the covenant, etc.
It also references things which can be no other than the Day of atonement
Heb 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
Heb 9:23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
Heb 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.
Heb 9:25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own
Here it speaks about purification by blood. It then specifically references the cleansing of the heavenly things.
Then it says
Christ entered into God's presence on our behalf, not as the high priest did every year with blood not his own.
That is a clear reference to the Day of Atonement.
Blood cleansing of the heavenly things.
Yearly entry into God's presence with blood.
What happened with the cross?
What happened is much easier felt then through academic explanation. There are lots of wrong ideas running around:
You do good to see the problems with penal substitution (PS), the ransom theory (although it is a ransom but it is not paid to God or satan) and the others.
I had to develop my own understanding, since I could not find anything that did not contradict God, His Love, mercy, justice and God being our Father.
The most popular explanation of atonement seems to be penal substitution (PS), but there are lots of issues:
PS is the whipping boy scenario which is not fair or just by human standards even if the innocent is willing, so why would God give us a different standard and say His is perfect?
PS makes God out to have the problem needing something in order to forgive people.
PS has God responsible/cause for the torture, humiliation and murder of Christ.
PS loses all the benefit that comes from punishing the guilty
If God is Love, how could God have a problem forgiving people? The reason given for penal substitution is God cannot forgive us without Jesus being our substitute, but that makes God out to having a problem, lacking in Love someway, and being almost blood thirsty.
What is the relationship between forgiveness and punishment for a transgression?
Would the perfect parent (the one you would like to be and be like God) see to the punishment of his/her children in order to have the Love to forgive those children?
The best parent does not punish (discipline) their children in order for the parent to have the love to forgive, they punish (discipline with time out or something) their children for the benefit that punishment provides?
God does not have a problem forgiving us, but we need to be punished somehow in order to obtain the benefits from being disciplined. So God somehow need to see to our discipline for our transgressions without killing us and yet be fair, just and show us His concern/Love.
What are the benefits to being fairly punished (disciplined) for our transgressions?
Answers:
Deterrent for the person being punished and others aware of the punishment to keep from repeating the action.
It places the value on the transgression (the greater the punishment the bigger the transgression), so times we do not know how much pain it has caused until we know the punishment for the transgression.
It shows fairness and justice, the parent needs to be consistent and we want to know we have a fair and just parent.
It is a way to put the transgression behind us, since we have done the time for the crime.
We know wonderful parent see to the discipline of the children they Love, so if our parents do not discipline (punish) us, we should rightfully question their love/concern for us.
Let me ask you a few questions:
1. How hard and why was it hard for God to allow Christ to do what did on the cross?
2. Christ is not standing in for me, but Christ is going to the cross because I did not keep from sinning, It is my fault Christ is allowing Himself to be tortured, humiliated and murdered, so I can personally be tortured for my sinning, not physically tortured like He was, but to tortured similar to the torture God went through watching His Son. Are there something worse than your own death?
3. As with those in the crowd (Act 2:37) I should experience a death blow to my heart from realizing what I have done, fully coming to the realization that my greatest Love has undergone torture, humiliation and murder, because of my sinning. Can we also say to the degree I Love Christ will be the degree to which I suffer and could that suffering be as great as His suffering?
4. The realization of what I cause Christ to willingly do for me on the cross is debilitating and makes me want to die, but there is also unbelievable Love shown from both God the Father and Christ that is uplifting and makes me want to live for them. So should we have mixed feelings about remembering what happened on the cross?
5. We also see how the cross does not work for the nonbeliever, since they would not experience any punishment in this life from Christ going to the cross. Their fair/just punishment will thus come later with hell. Does this explains how Christ going to the cross can be both for everyone and yet not everyone?
6. The bottom line is: God sees to the fair punishment of the guilty, we receive all the benefits of being punished, we realize what a unbelievable huge debt sin has created and thus when God does forgive us; we will have an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love) automatically, since Christ has taught us: he that is forgiven much will Love much . Is this Love what we are after?
7. If you do not experience the punishment for your transgressions, is hard to get the complete feeling you have truly been forgiven (like a child that has not been punished for a transgression)?
I have written a parable to help explain:
There is battle going on and you as an old man leave you post. The crime is punishable by 40 lashes or equivalent, but that will kill you. Your young innocent son offers to take your place and explains to the judge (general) that; 40 lashes on him will cause you tremendous pain and anguish. The judge (general) refuses because that would not be just to punish an innocent for the guilty (Whipping Boy). The innocent son then says: I will go over to the enemys camp for my fathers sake and they will beat me and imprison me until the end of the war. The Judge (general) says he cannot stop the young man from doing such a thing and knows this will really hurt the father when you find out, so the judge will not have to punish you father (justice has been done). You plead for the sons return, but it is to later and besides; there is really no other way for you to be punished and live.
You are not answering my questions, but just saying you disagree, so are we to just disagree?I'm sorry but I don't think I can agree with any of this. There was a problem that God had to solve. How would He save fallen humanity but uphold the intergrity of His law? That was the issue at hand, and that issue was solved by the sacrifice of His Son. Through the death of Christ, God showed Himself to be fair, loving, and just. Christ's life proved God's law to be something that man could keep, thus upholding it's integrity, while His death payed for the debt owed to the law by the transgressor, thus satisfying the laws requirement.
Too often people get the issue confused because they are trying to think about how God could or couldn't behave based on thier own finite reasoning. We look to the word of God to explain this matter, and yes to the insipred word of His messenger.
You're right. That text does make mention of the day of atonement.
Actually the text does not say that the heavenly things had been cleaned, but that it was necesary for them to be cleaned by better sacrifices.
I guess where we're going to differ here is the assumption that this text is placing Christ and the Father in the MHP. That it simply doesn't do.
You are not answering my questions, but just saying you disagree, so are we to just disagree?
So you think the wises, most knowledgeable, most powerful Being has a personal problem he has to solve with Christ going to the cross?
Did God write a bad Law?
So it is Gods problem with saving man?
Does a most wonderful wise parent have a problem forgiving his/her children?
How is it ever fair (as you say) to torture, humiliate and murder the totally innocent and allow the guilty to go free?
We agree that verse 23 emphasizes the necessity of the cleansing of the heavenly things, but does not specify a timing. And were it in isolation, that would be a good argument. However, it is not in isolation.
Right after mentioning the necessity of the cleansing of the heavenly things it describes that cleansing.
Heb 9:23 It is therefore a necdessity that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
Verse 23 notes the necessity. I have rendered it here more literally. It does not have timing. But right after that we see the word "for" which translates the greek word GAR, which ties this verse to the next verse. This whole chapter spells out things fulfilled. The question of the necessity was not to be left unanswered.
Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others
The fulfillment is the entry into God's presence, in comparison with the high priest's entry with blood every year. That is the day of atonement, and in the context of the cleansing of the heavenly things it is not at all unclear.
It is confirmed by 1:3
Heb 1:3b After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
Purification is the same root here. He made purification for sins.
So the action is rooted in the past. Like the rest of the chapter it is discussing what Jesus already accomplished.
We have gone through the reasons a number of times and in the end you wind up acknowledging a lot of the evidence. I guess we can do it again.
First point of evidence that the entry extended to the MHP, Jesus inaugurated, which you agree with.
That involved entry into the full sanctuary, true or false?
Man, I don't see how you're making such great leaps here. You're continuing to point to the day of atonement and the process there to cleanse sins, but you forget that the cleansing of the sins on the day of atonement was not complete until the sins were transfered from the sanctuary to the scapegoat, which was lead out of the camp.
What Christ had accomplished to this point in the book of Hebrews is the providing of the blood needed to cleanse the sanctuary, and the entrance into the sanctuary to being the process, starting first in the Holy Place, and then at the appointed time, into the Most Holy Place.
You can't just pick and choose which parts of the process you want to make applicable, and forget about the rest.
Yeah I've never followed the "Inaguration" arguments around here that you've had with others. Twas a bit too much for me
I try to keep this whole thing as simple as possible.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?