• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

How do you understand atonement

Discussion in 'General Theology' started by Stryder06, Apr 8, 2013.

  1. Stryder06

    Stryder06 Check the signature

    +452
    SDA
    Married
    That there refers to the sacrifice.

    The blood presented in the sanctuary, both the HP and MHP was used to clean the sanctuary of the sins of the people. And that was only the first part. The sanctuary wasn't cleansed until the sins were removed. That was the process. At what point have the sins been removed?

    It was a shadow. The high priest on earth was an example in part of our High Priest in heaven. We received a glimpse of that heavenly work through the earthly pattern. Not the full thing.

    We don't disagree that Jesus entered into the sanctuary. Do you think Jesus literally sprinkled His blood in the sanctuary in heaven? Prey tell how did it get there? Who collected it when He was killed? Surely you must agree that the act on earth was symbolic of something that would occur in heaven.

    Lev 16 shows that a final sacrifice was made once the scapegoat was removed carrying the sins of the people. The text says that the final sacrifice was for the people and the priest for atonement.

    What do you mean it didn't play a role in the sanctuary? So all the sacfifices played a role in the cleansing of the sanctuary but the scapegoat didn't? That doesn't make sense. If it wasn't part of the process, it wouldn't have been needed.

    Yes, the scapegoat happens when He leaves the sanctuary. When that occurs the sins that are polluting the sanctuary will be removed thus cleansing it. Again, you can't take part of the process that suits you and leave the rest of it out. Also, Hebrews isn't trying to interpret the day of atonement service. It's simply trying to prove to the Jewish reader that Christ is now our Great High Priest. The old system of sacrifices was no more, and their focus needed to switch to the new one.
     
  2. Stryder06

    Stryder06 Check the signature

    +452
    SDA
    Married
    You're probably not going to like this, but I have had enough evidence from God that what we teach and believe is true. I fully believe in the ministry of Sr White, and I have no qualms about not entertaining "all the evidence". That sir, is how men's minds get lead astray. The devil knows how to spin scripture better than any man, and I have no interest in opening myself up to being deceived.


    Vs 15-21: Christ is the mediator of the new covenant. Just as the old covenant was sealed with blood, so was the new covenant sealed with His blood. Just as the earthly vessels were cleansed by blood, so too the heavenly ones are cleansed by His sacrifice.

    Heb 10:20: Christ made a way for us into the Father's presence (i.e the sanctuary) through His sacrifice.

    Ok. And what does that have to do with the day of atonment?
     
  3. Michael Howson

    Michael Howson Newbie

    2
    +0
    Protestant
    Single
    The word translated 'ATONEMENT' actually means "to COVER". In the Old Testament, and
    under the Mosaic Law sins of the people were 'atoned' or, covered by animal sacrifice.
    Now that Christ has fulfilled the Law and become the 'Once-for all-time' sacrifice, our
    sin is not merely 'covered', it is forgiven.
     
  4. Going Merry

    Going Merry ‏‏‏‏ ‏‏‏‏

    +850
    Non-Denom
    Single
    I view atonement according to the law of God, that Christ Jesus came to fulfill. This is why John, a descendant of Aaron was specially selected for his ministry of baptism and the baptism of the Lord. All sacrifices has to be without blemish. All sacrifices has to have a high priest to pass sin to the sacrifice by laying of hands (which the baptism manifests as). All sacrifices must be bled to death to atone for said sin.

    So I understand atonement that Christ Jesus took up all of my sin that I have ever done at his baptism. All my future sin too. All of my present sin, all of my past. Not only my sin but this also includes the whole world. So I believe all sin was placed on the Lord Jesus at his baptism in the Jordan. (the river of death, hehe) Then he went into the wilderness right afterwards, much how after the highpriest passes sin to the scapegoat in the law they would release the animal into the wilderness. Then Christ carried all of our sin 2000 years ago. So he had to die, because he was carrying all judgment on himself. Then He was crucified, while still being pure, yet having the guilt of every sin of the whole worlds sin. So he crucified all sin away once and for all through his blood. Making the world sinless from then on. That is why I say I am sinless, because I believe in his atonement like that. Even though we have to repent and believe to receive his gift. Even though sin is still done, those sins judgment were taken away by Christ.
     
  5. bling

    bling Regular Member Supporter

    +890
    Non-Denom
    Married
     
  6. tall73

    tall73 Sophia7's husband Supporter

    +2,685
    Christian
    Married
    The sacrifice alone did not make purification. I thought you were wanting to go by the pattern? Moreover, the participle shows it was completed before sitting at God's right hand, focusing on the sanctuary portion.
     
  7. tall73

    tall73 Sophia7's husband Supporter

    +2,685
    Christian
    Married
    The text I posted shows in fact atonement was made by the blood in the sanctuary.

    However, you have a larger problem. The Adventist church holds that something happened in the sanctuary. But it does not match the type you keep speaking of, or the fulfillment in Hebrews.

    In the sanctuary there was no investigation of blood or books. There was entry into God's presence and presentation of blood.
     
  8. tall73

    tall73 Sophia7's husband Supporter

    +2,685
    Christian
    Married
    Now you are arguing against your earlier point of going with the pattern, even after Hebrews described the fulfillment.

    The problem for you is BOTH the pattern and fulfillment agree on this point. There was

    -death
    -entry into God's presence
    -presentation of blood for cleansing.


    Neither in the type or in the fulfillment in Hebrews do we see this notion of investigating. The priest did not investigate the blood, he applied the blood for atonement.
     
  9. tall73

    tall73 Sophia7's husband Supporter

    +2,685
    Christian
    Married
    Jesus presented HIMSELF, the completed sacrifice, in God's presence. He is the sacrifice and He presents His completed work.

    It is symbolic, and the fulfillment is spelled out. Death, entry, presentation before God, described in comparison to the high priest on the day of atonement entering with blood yearly.

    The fulfillment is spelled out. There is nothing about investigating in the type or fulfillment. Jesus presented His blood for atonement for all, just as the high priest brought blood for atonement for the whole camp.

    Moreover, the word that the author uses for the blood presentation in the description of the type, is the same word used for Jesus presenting Himself in God's presence in 9:25.

    This was noted by Adventist scholar Felix Cortez in a footnote on page 25 of his recent dissertation The Anchor of the Soul that Enters 'Within the Veil': The Ascension of the 'Son' in the Letter to the Hebrews:

    Interestingly, Hebrews departs from the language of the LXX to describe the manipulation of blood by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement: the blood is not “sprinkled” on the sanctuary but “offered” (9:7).



    The same word for offered appears in both to represent the blood work:

    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.

    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,


    The under lying Greek term is the same in both. The author is showing the type and the fulfillment.
     
  10. tall73

    tall73 Sophia7's husband Supporter

    +2,685
    Christian
    Married



    Stryder, first of all the text I mentioned does in fact say the work in the sanctuary is making atonement.

    However, let's take your argument for a second about the last burnt offering.

    Lev 16:24 And he shall bathe his body in water in a holy place and put on his garments and come out and offer his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people and make atonement for himself and for the people.


    When do you propose Jesus fulfilled THAT sacrifice?

    Is He going to die again at the end of time?

    His one sacrifice of Himself already fulfilled all those sacrifices.
     
  11. tall73

    tall73 Sophia7's husband Supporter

    +2,685
    Christian
    Married


    You did not understand.

    The scapegoat portion of the service did not happen inside the sanctuary. It happened outside the sanctuary.

    The part Adventists focus on in the IJ happens inside. But that part was already fulfilled.

    And neither the type nor the fulfillment in Hebrews mention anything about investigating books .
     
  12. tall73

    tall73 Sophia7's husband Supporter

    +2,685
    Christian
    Married
    Lev 16:20 "And when he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall present the live goat.


    Stryder the focus for Adventists is the IJ, which happens in the sanctuary. And you don't find it described at all in the Day of Atonement service. No priest on the DOA examined things inside the sanctuary. Rather the high priest applied blood for atonement for all the camp.

    That was the fulfillment in Hebrews as well, death, entry into God's presence and purification.



    Stryder, if it references the type, then shows how He entered into God's presence to offer Himself, in the middle of a discussion of the anti-typical fulfillment of the cleansing of the heavenly things, in comparison to the entry of the high priest on day of atonement yearly with blood, using the same word for Christ presenting Himself as was used of the blood ministration in vs 7........ how is that not discussing the fulfillment?

    And of course Hebrews 1:3 references making purification of sins before sitting down.
     
  13. tall73

    tall73 Sophia7's husband Supporter

    +2,685
    Christian
    Married
    So you are contending that if you look at the Bible's discussion of the inauguration of the sanctuary by Christ you may become deceived?

    And therefore you justify coming to a conclusion without looking at all the biblical evidence.

    HOWEVER, you are fine with taking Ellen White's word on it.

    Your choice. However, do you expect that the people posting in GT who do not accept your view of Ellen White will be convinced by this? What do you have to offer those who think the Bible should be the thing that tests doctrine?
     
  14. tall73

    tall73 Sophia7's husband Supporter

    +2,685
    Christian
    Married
    So do you agree here that the two services referenced are the ratification of the covenant, and then the inauguration of the sanctuary? (these were separate)


    The term used is dedication/inauguration by the way.


    So do you agree Jesus inaugurated the sanctuary for service at His ascension?
     
  15. Cribstyl

    Cribstyl Veteran

    +1,091
    United States
    Pentecostal
    Married
    US-Democrat
    :hypno: Stryder, stop leading and following blindly. It's commentary that leads you to believe that the heavenly sacrifices are patterned after the earthly sacrifices.
    The OT makes it clear that the:cleansing, animals and bloods was not the pattern of heavenly things. What was the pattern is the tabernacle (tent) and instruments (furniture).

    Exd 25:9According to all that I shew thee, [after] the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make [it].

    The scriptures makes it clear that the cleansing and sacrifices was to serve as a witness against the people not as a pattern of heavenly things.
    Jos 22:28Therefore said we, that it shall be, when they should [so] say to us or to our generations in time to come, that we may say [again], Behold the pattern of the altar of the LORD, which our fathers made, not for burnt offerings, nor for sacrifices; but it [is] a witness between us and you.

    Stryder, the book of Hebrews reenforces the truth by saying: The sacrifices and cleansings was imposed on them until a time. (This reveals that the sacrifes was not a pattern of the heavenly sanctuary. Hebrew go on to say that blood of goats, bulls and cleansing is not offered or acceptable in the heavenly.

    Stryder, how can the earthly sacrifice be a pattern if it's not used or mention in the heavenly sanctuary?


    Hbr 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest
    of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
    Hbr 9:9 Which [was] a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
    Hbr 9:10 [Which stood] only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed [on them] until the time of reformation.
    Hbr 9:11¶But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
    Hbr 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us].
    Hbr 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

    Paul is making it clear that these sacrifices was a pattern for the specified time only and not for time to come.
    SDA have to teach their santuary doctrine by misapplying the scriptures.
     
  16. Stryder06

    Stryder06 Check the signature

    +452
    SDA
    Married
    Yes, but it was still part of the service. And what the priest didn't do once he finsihed in the sanctuary was doddle around. He sprinkled the blood and immediately left taking with him the sins that had polluted it all year long. That was how it was cleansed. That seems to be the part you're missing.

    Not.

    Hebrews isn't it's fulfillment. It makes parallels as much as necessary for the people it was directed to at that time. And the portion of Christ investigating the books, so to speak, happens in the MHP. Considering He wasn't there yet, that could very well be what it wasn't mentioned in Hebrews. ;)
     
  17. Stryder06

    Stryder06 Check the signature

    +452
    SDA
    Married
    The service in it's entirety was patterned after the heavenly. I don't need commentary to know that. I knew that before I read anything from Sr white. A very wise elder from my church who's life study has been the sanctuary taught me that.

    That which happened on earth was a shadow. A type. It wasn't a direct correlation, but an example to help us understand, as much as possible, the sacrifice and work that was to be completed on our behalf for the forgiveness of sins.
     
  18. Stryder06

    Stryder06 Check the signature

    +452
    SDA
    Married
    Don't be silly. Of course He's not going to die again. I'm actually still looking into that. I'm not willing to ignore that text simply because I don't have an answer.

    What I know is that Christ didn't have to make atonement for Himself. So just as the sacrifice of the bull didn't apply to Him, neither does this. However, it does say that this final sacrifice made atonement for the priest and the people.

    My concern isn't so much as to how this applies to Christ, but as to how it applies to the people. Right now, I'm wondering if it is symbolic of the final destruction of the wicked.
     
  19. Stryder06

    Stryder06 Check the signature

    +452
    SDA
    Married
    Not at all. I'm contending that I like to keep it simple. I won't say understaning the inauguration isn't important. Just that I haven't gotten to that part yet, and I'm not particulally interested in discussing it with you. No offense.

    Not at all. I've come to my conclusion by looking at the sanctuary and seeing the parallels there. That's all the biblical evidence I need. Mix in the whole 2300 days thing, and I'm good :cool:

    Oh don't sound so surprised. I have no reason to take your word over it, when I see the things she said coming to pass.

    Not my concern. This isn't an intellecutal matter that can simply be solved by providing "cold hard facts". This is a spiritual war that is being waged. The only thing I can do is provide the information that I have and leave it in God's hands. Those who will respond shall respond. Whether it's now or next year is not for me to say, or to concern myself with. What I do know is that we are fast approaching the close of probation (bet you haven't heard that in a while ;)) and all of God's children are being called out of Babylon. Those who are His shall hear, and shall leave and take their stand with those who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
     
  20. Cribstyl

    Cribstyl Veteran

    +1,091
    United States
    Pentecostal
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Those comments above in pink dont qualify as scriptures. Prove them Stryder?
    Do you have any scripture to show that the sacrifice and services was a pattern of heavenly things?
    The scriptures does teach us that the sanctuary and furniture are a pattern of the heavenly, but you're rambling on about the services being a heavenly pattern. There is a fine line between truth and error. Hebrews explain that those services in Lev was required under the first covenant. And the new covenant have better things. No bulls, no goats. Hbr 9:23

    Hbr 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, [that] thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

    Hebrews 9 teaches that the services was a pattern for the time then present not for now and furture in the heavenly sanctuary. It was imposed until time of reformation.


    Hbr 9:9Which [was] a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
    Hbr 9:10[Which stood] only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed [on them] until the time of reformation.

     
    Last edited: May 5, 2013
Loading...