Atonement ‘made’ …WHERE?

[scriptmemory]

Walter, your argument that "one is demon possessed" so if you believe this that one teaches (assuming this one originated it) "you are demon-led and a false teacher " is illogical as "The catholic church teaches it so it is false!" and "there are evil catholic priests so all are evil." You propose "a prophet I declare evil teaches this, so it is evil and so are you because you believe it."

You need to reclaim some of your naiveté. The Scriptures are the standard for all false doctrine. (Is. 8:20; Ps. 119:105, 130 etc.) They are here being resorted to by BobRyan in defense of his beliefs so it follows logically and coridially that it is your burden not to retort to imaginary arguments you fabricate for him for whatever reason your answers may not suffice another way. Focus.

God bless!

 

[billwald]

As long as the atonement was accomplished why does when or where matter?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Walter, your argument that "one is demon possessed" so if you believe this that one teaches (assuming this one originated it) "you are demon-led and a false teacher " is illogical as "The catholic church teaches it so it is false!" and "there are evil catholic priests so all are evil." You propose "a prophet I declare evil teaches this, so it is evil and so are you because you believe it."

You need to reclaim some of your naiveté. The Scriptures are the standard for all false doctrine. (Is. 8:20; Ps. 119:105, 130 etc.) They are here being resorted to by BobRyan in defense of his beliefs so it follows logically and coridially that it is your burden not to retort to imaginary arguments you fabricate for him for whatever reason your answers may not suffice another way. Focus.

God bless!

Your interruption to rebuke me is not only a distraction from this discussion but your Catholic analogy is not even relevant. If you could show that a well known documented false prophet originated the Catholic Church and that you were discussing a doctrine that originated with that particular prophet then you would have a proper analogy but you don't. Ellen G. White is a documented false prophet by biblical tests. She is recognized as the prophet founder of SDA. The doctrine of 2300 years and cleansing of the sanctuary in 1843 is peculiar to her and no one else before her.

There are those before her that interpreted the 2300 offerings as day/year eqivilents (Miller) and predicted Christ would come in that year but he admitted he was wrong and repudiated that theory. There are those who teach that in1843/44 Jesus came somewhere (Charles Russell taught he came invisibly to earth) but no one but the false prophet Ellen G. White ever taught that in 1843/44 Jesus came into the other side of the heavenly of the temple to begin an investigative judgement based upon 2300 day year of Daniel 8. This is a particular doctrine that can be traced to a particular false prophet who originated a particular denomination.

I am dropping this discussion with you because it is futile. It looks as you are brand new to the forum by the number of visits and so I welcome you to the forum.

 

[Dr. Walter]

DHK you need to "pick a lane".

Satisfaction is a two-edged sword or a "double lane" highway by your analogy. It has inseparable reference to both the Law and to those condemned by the Law. In regard to the law it satisfies both the righteousness STANDARD of God as well as the violation of that standard. In regard to a people it satisfies the PRICE for their redemption demanded by that postive/negative STANDARD.

In the Old Testament types, you cannot divorce the atonement from both a standard and a people. It is a SATISFACTION for both.

Furthermore, you cannot make a translation (Septuigent) trump the original hebrew in regard to our dispute about the daily offering. Genesis 1 is not the same structure in the hebrew as Daniel 8 and you cannot legitimately appeal to a translation of the Hebrew to overturn the Hebrew any more than I can appeal to the KJV to overturn the either the Hebrew or Greek text. That is absurd rationale.

 

[DHK]

DHK you need to "pick a lane". Either you admit that the atonement was made at the cross or you think that is error and that only "appeasement" was made at the cross.

Of course the atonement was made at the cross. Any belief less than that is heresy. Is that what you belief? Christ satisfied the legal payment for the sins paid for mankind. That is atonement. It is propitiation. Methinks you don't know what the word means.

In the atonement model "God so loved the World that He gave".

Partly true. It is efficacious only to those that believe on his name as the rest of the verse states.

In the propitiation-appeasement model - Christ so suffered that the angry deity was asuaged.

I don't believe in angry deity being assuaged Bob. I never even hinted as such. So I can only conclude that this must be your view of God. Is this so?

You seem to argue that atonement does not allow for your idea of propitiation (and thus that the NIV "Atoning Sacrifice" rendering is horribly wrong for hilasmos) so you are apparently leaping off the cliff of the pagan idea of appeasing the angry deity.

Are you so naive that you don't know the meaning of the word "atonement"? Please Bob, go to some good Bible dictionaries and not SDA writings and look the word up and find out the meaning. When our sins were atoned for the demands of God were legally met. The penalty of our sins were legally paid for. Jesus Christ cried out on the cross: "It is finished!" There is nothing more man could do. Salvation is finished. Nothing can be added: not baptism, not the law, not the keeping of the Sabbath, NOTHING! Salvation is all of God; nothing of man. It is finished!. Our sins have been atoned for. God is satisfied; not simply appeased but fully and legally satisfied that they (our sins) are forgiven and paid for--all of them--the past, present and future.

But in that case you would be arguing against the idea of atonement at the cross. (Are you really thinking this through or is this another one of your "whatever BobRyan says -- not" lines of argument??)

I don't follow SDA thinking at all. I follow the Bible which I have evidently set forth for you in the above paragraph. Yours is one of belief. You can believe it or not. The choice is up to you.

Maybe more time thinking about it in your case would be helpful.

Believe me. I have thought it through. The Bible trumps SDA theology every time.

Meanwhile the texts in the post you pretend not to understand show the use of the same word in 1John 2:2 being used for atonement.

Your ignorance of this verse betrays you. You compare the Greek word in this NT word to some Hebrew OT words as if they could match each other. They can't. You also avoid context.

The point remains -- obviously.

Yes the point does remain, and the reader will judge which point remains.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
DHK you need to "pick a lane". Either you admit that the atonement was made at the cross or you think that is error and that only "appeasement" was made at the cross.

DHK said -

Of course the atonement was made at the cross.

So then why do you get so bent out of shape when you find that the NIV claims that Christ provided the Biblical "Atoning Sacrifice" at the cross instead of opting for the greek pagan concept of appeasing an angry deity?

If you are going to claim that Christ made atonement at the cross - you can hardly go on a crusade about how He did NOT make an atoning sacrifice at the cross.

And Given that even the LXX makes this point in Ezek 44:27 with Hilasmos just as we see in 1John 2:2 and the NIV with Hilasmos -- why are you so worked up over it??

1John 2 NIV - Strongs 2434: Hilasmos
2 and He Himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

“Atoning Sacrifice” NIV (Strongs 2434: Greek: Hilasmos

The Greek term Hilasmos is talking less about appeasing an angry deity (propitiation) and more about atonement (God so loved that He gave) than many would like to think.


Lev 25:9 Hilasmos – “Atonement”

kjv: 9Then shalt thou cause the trumpet of the jubile to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month, in the day of atonement shall ye make the trumpet sound throughout all your land.


NASB: 9'You shall then sound a ram's horn abroad on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the day of atonement you shall sound a horn all through your land.



Ezek 44:27 – Septuagint “Sin Offering” (Strongs 2434 root word: Hilasmos

27And in the day that he goeth into the sanctuary, unto the inner court, to minister in the sanctuary, he shall offer his sin offering, saith the Lord GOD.


Ezek 45:20 “Make Atonement” Kaphar (Heb) (strongs 2433 Hilaskomai -- hilaskomai (the verb), from which hilasmos and hilasterion are derived

45:20
NIV: 20 You are to do the same on the seventh day of the month for anyone who sins unintentionally or through ignorance; so you are to make atonement for the temple.

Holman: 20 You must do the same thing on the seventh [day] of the month for everyone who sins unintentionally or through ignorance. In this way you will make atonement for the temple


NASB: 20"Thus you shall do on the seventh day of the month for everyone who goes astray or is naive; so you shall make atonement for the house.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Satisfaction is a two-edged sword or a "double lane" highway by your analogy. It has inseparable reference to both the Law and to those condemned by the Law. In regard to the law it satisfies both the righteousness STANDARD of God as well as the violation of that standard. In regard to a people it satisfies the PRICE for their redemption demanded by that postive/negative STANDARD.

In the Old Testament types, you cannot divorce the atonement from both a standard and a people. It is a SATISFACTION for both.

Atonement "God so Loved the He Gave" provides the sacrifice for sin that the LAW demands. Instead of the propitiation concept of an angry deity being "appeased" it is the concept of "legal requirement met" it is the concept of BOTH Justice AND mercy in perfect balance.

It is nothing at all like the capricious whimsy of the angry greek deities needing to be appeased by animal or human sacrifices.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

1. - the LXX refutes your view, saying "evening and morning days 2300" -- kaiprwihmerai disxiliai kaitriakosiai

2. Your idea that Ex 29:38-39 uses the same "Evening and morning" formula as Dan 8 collapsed entirely.
3. And now we have seen a number of other Bible scholars (all non-SDA) admitting to the obvious fact that the 2300 evening mornings of Dan 8 are to be taken as 2300 days.

As you were shown - the text of Dan 8 does not used your much hoped for "morning and evening" formula in Ex 29 - that you claimed to be the "Evening and morning" formula we find in Dan 8:14. And even the LXX emphasis this point that the Dan 8:14 text indicates 2300 days.

So also do non-SDA bible scholars agree with the LXX and the reading of Dan 8 in the Hebrew text -


Quote:
Adam Clarke –
Verse 14. Unto two thousand and three hundred days
Though literally it be two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings. Yet I think the prophetic day should be understood here, as in other parts of this prophet, and must signify so many years. If we date these years from the vision of the he-goat, (Alexander's invading Asia,) this was A.M. 3670, B.C. 334; and two thousand three hundred years from that time


Quote:
John Gill

unto two thousand and three hundred days;
or so many "mornings" and "evenings" F8; which shows that not so many years, as Jacchiades, and others, are meant; but natural days, consisting of twenty four hours, and which make six years, three months, and eighteen days;


Quote:
Geneva Study Bible
8:14 And z he said unto me, Unto a two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.
(z) Christ answered me for the comfort of the Church.
(a) That is, until so many natural days have passed, which make six years, and three and a half months:


Quote:
Matthew Henry
(2.) The answer given to this question, Daniel 8:14. Christ gives instruction to the holy angels, for they are our fellow-servants; but here the answer was given to Daniel, because for his sake the question was asked: He said unto me. God sometimes gives in great favours to his people, in answer to the enquiries and requests of their friends for them. Now, [1.] Christ assures him that the trouble shall end; it shall continue 2300 days and no longer, so many evenings and mornings (so the word is),

Walter said -
Furthermore, you cannot make a translation (Septuigent) trump the original hebrew in regard to our dispute about the daily offering.

The point is that non-Ellen-White Bible scholars accept this obvious point that evening and morning are the specific formula used in Genesis 1 for day - and so also did the Hebrew scholars of the LXX that translated the Hebrew of Dan 8 into Greek.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The doctrine of 2300 years and cleansing of the sanctuary in 1843 is peculiar to her and no one else before her.

There are those before her that interpreted the 2300 offerings as day/year eqivilents (Miller) .

Not to Mention Adam Clarke and others doing the same -- when it comes to admitting that evening and morning identify a day in Dan 8:14 and that the 2300 prophetic days are in fact prophetic years.

You need to look into a bit more history before leaping off that cliff.

In the case of Hiram Edson - it turns out that Oct 23, 1844 was the first time he came across the idea that Christ entered the Most Holy Place of the heavenly Sanctuary on Oct 22, 1844 - the Day of Atonement.

George Knight writes -

On October 23, 1844, Hiram Edson, a Methodist farmer of Port Gibson, New York, became convicted during a session of prayer with fellow believers“that light should be given, and our disappointment be explained.”

Soon thereafter, he and a companion (probably O.R.L. Crosier) set out to encourage their fellow believers. As they crossed a field, Edson reported, “I was stopped about midway,” and “heaven seemed open to my view. . . . I saw distinctly, and clearly, that instead of our High Priest coming out [the common expectation of the Millerites] of the Most Holy of the heavenly sanctuary to come to this earth on the tenth day of the seventh month, at the end of the 2300 days, that he for the first time entered on that day the second apartment of that sanctuary; and that he had a work to perform in the Most Holy before coming to this earth.”

Soon the summons of his companion, who had passed far beyond him, brought Edson back to the realities of the field. To a query as to what was wrong, Edson replied that “‘the Lord was answering our morning prayer; by giving light with regard to our disappointment.’”

Edson’s insight soon drove him into extended Bible study with Crosier and Dr. F. B. Hahn. Following Miller’s concordance approach to unlocking the meaning of Scripture, they concluded that the sanctuary to be cleansed in Daniel 8:14 was not the earth or the church, but the sanctuary in heaven, of which the earthly sanctuary had been a type or copy.

Hahn and Edson decided that their discoveries were “just what the scattered remnant needed” to explain the disappointment and “set the brethren on the right track.” They agreed to share the expense of publication between them if Crosier would “‘write out the subject of the sanctuary’” based on their Bible study. As a result, Crosier began to publish the findings of their combined study in early 1845 in the Day Dawn (H. Edson MS).

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

As long as the atonement was accomplished why does when or where matter?

That is a good question.

In Calvinism's atonement, the Lev 16 teaching of scripture is tossed out the window and so for them atonement ends at the cross. The problem with that is that as soon as you admit that "not everyone is saved" then you are stuck with "limited atonement". There is no escaping it. And of course Calvinists hit Arminians with that point - all day long!

However in Lev 16 the Bible teaches that Atonement includes not ONLY the "atoning sacrifice" completed at the cross - but also the Lev 16 work of the High Priest in the sanctuary. That means that Christ's ongoing work for us as our High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary - spoken of in great detail in the book of Hebrews decades after the cross -- is part of the Bible scope for the term "Atonement".

This is precisely the context that the Arminian argument for free will requires. As Arminians we need an UNLIMITED atoning sacrifice at the cross AND also a definition for "Atonement" that allows each person to choose to accept or reject the Gospel before the door of Atonement is closed.

Turns out the Bible had the correct model all along.

Of course that does not sit well with our Calvinist friends. Not too much of a surprise there. What is more surprising is that some Arminians are simply not following this Bible study through to see how the Bible has given them the perfect solution for the definition of Atonement.

Where the Calvinist argument has merrit is when they note that once Atonement is complete - the story is over. Not getting saved for those not atoned for - and no being lost for those atoned for -- this results in an ideal Calvinist form of limited atonement - if you ignore Lev 16 and simply truncate atonement with the "Atoning Sacrifice". It results in the ideal Arminian (free will) form of limited atonement if you admit to the facts that Paul admits to in Hebrews - that Christ is STILL engaged in His role as our High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary - even though the unlimited "Atoning sacrirfice" is completed at the cross -- the door of atonement is still open for the sinner to choose salvation!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[scriptmemory]

Your interruption to rebuke me is not only a distraction from this discussion but your Catholic analogy is not even relevant. If you could show that a well known documented false prophet originated the Catholic Church and that you were discussing a doctrine that originated with that particular prophet then you would have a proper analogy but you don't. Ellen G. White is a documented false prophet by biblical tests. She is recognized as the prophet founder of SDA. The doctrine of 2300 years and cleansing of the sanctuary in 1843 is peculiar to her and no one else before her.

There are those before her that interpreted the 2300 offerings as day/year eqivilents (Miller) and predicted Christ would come in that year but he admitted he was wrong and repudiated that theory. There are those who teach that in1843/44 Jesus came somewhere (Charles Russell taught he came invisibly to earth) but no one but the false prophet Ellen G. White ever taught that in 1843/44 Jesus came into the other side of the heavenly of the temple to begin an investigative judgement based upon 2300 day year of Daniel 8. This is a particular doctrine that can be traced to a particular false prophet who originated a particular denomination.

I am dropping this discussion with you because it is futile. It looks as you are brand new to the forum by the number of visits and so I welcome you to the forum.

I can feel the welcome. I think. It's nice to see you getting back to the text with Bob.

However, some corrections to misinformation you gave:

1. Ellen White was among the charter members but was not "the founder" of the SDA church.

2. She did not originate the sanctuary doctrine of the SDA church nor any major doctrine. This was hammered out with Scripture on the works of previous people by Crosier, Hann and Haskell and many others.

3. She has no bearing on the atonement issue here as she is not quoted as an authority on it by anyone who has something to say about it! Whether she was correct in her affirmation on this doctrine is determined by Scripture alone.

4. Someone's belief in this doctrine is NOT judged on whether she supported and wrote on it. If so, you are admitting false prophets (as you claim she is) teach only lies which is sitting duck for a reverse psych from the devil.

Be warned! (Though you probably don't "need warning" anymore than you "need interruption" think of it as good will toward every reader. )

God bless!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Dr Walter, you remember the story of Samson and the pillars of the temple. If you could push over the SDA monstrosity of the 'Atonement', you would have pulled its whole temple down on them. But poor Samson; he had to go down with them. I'm only trying to warn you, SDAs hate to see their opponents survive an argument. But they will keep on arguing 'all the world' is saved through love as if nothing happened.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I have recently arrived at another perspective on Mrs White's role in the origin and establishment of the SDA 'movement'. She certainly was not stupid. But she was incredibly naive --- or shrewd!

Why? Because she was so used or and abused as a ploy by the leadership AND usual membership of SDA-ism from its start to this day.

 

[BobRyan]

As long as the atonement was accomplished why does when or where matter?

There is of course another huge reason that this matters and that is because instead of the Calvinist idea of limited atonement instantiated 2000 years ago - with nothing much at all going on while we wait for the 2nd coming for 2000 years -- the bible model indicates that when Christ's High priestly ministry ends (when the heavenly Sanctuary closes - as seen in Rev 15:8) the next thing we get is the 7 last plagues of Rev 16.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

'sarcastic' ---Bob Ryan's linguistic brand.

now our newcomer's ---'opprobrious'.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I think the glove has hit floor.

I'll be seated as I watch. Just like I love my English or real, rugby.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The Most Holy entered by Jesus in capacity and office of High Priest of the Most High God

"OFFERING" his resurrected LIFE :

"First Sheaf Offering waved before the LORD"
in "Passover of Yahweh"
by the "Full Fellowship" (Klaas Schilder) of
God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit


WHEN:

God "entering into His Own Rest as God in his own"
"RAISED CHRIST FROM THE DEAD",
"in the flesh" of his incorruptible body, and

WHERE :

Christ is "RESTED-UP" :
"HIS NAME : THE MOST HOLY PLACE".

As Bob Ryan in previous discussions put the words in my mouth, "Jesus entering Jesus". Yes, LIFE entering Jesus “I-AM-THE-LIFE”
in the earth in the grave

AS :

"God having loosed the pains of death...
...FOR HE (the Father) IS ON MY (Jesus'), RIGHT HAND...
...Thou hast made known to Me the ways of LIFE;
Thou hast made Me FULL of joy
WITH, THY, COUNTENANCE"---

"WHEN GOD RAISED CHRIST FROM THE DEAD"
“BY THE GLORY OF THE FATHER”—

HERE! WHEN! WHERE! is HOW Christ made "atonement for sin" : "ONCE FOR ALL" and "FINISHED ALL THE WORKS OF GOD" and
"GOD THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS : _RESTED_!"

 

[Dr. Walter]

I can feel the welcome. I think. It's nice to see you getting back to the text with Bob.

However, some corrections to misinformation you gave:

1. Ellen White was among the charter members but was not "the founder" of the SDA church.

2. She did not originate the sanctuary doctrine of the SDA church nor any major doctrine. This was hammered out with Scripture on the works of previous people by Crosier, Hann and Haskell and many others.

3. She has no bearing on the atonement issue here as she is not quoted as an authority on it by anyone who has something to say about it! Whether she was correct in her affirmation on this doctrine is determined by Scripture alone.

4. Someone's belief in this doctrine is NOT judged on whether she supported and wrote on it. If so, you are admitting false prophets (as you claim she is) teach only lies which is sitting duck for a reverse psych from the devil.

Be warned! (Though you probably don't "need warning" anymore than you "need interruption" think of it as good will toward every reader. )

God bless!

You have wasted all your time here nitpicking. It is the prophetic authority claimed by Ellen G. White that gave the sanctuary doctrine its approved divine status among SDA advocates. It is the prophetic authority claimed by Ellen G. White that gave the formation of the SDA denomination its divine approval among SDA advocates. If not, then why did SDA Advocates accept and recognize and follow her as a prophet?

Are you a Seventh Day Adventist?

 

[Dr. Walter]

That is a good question.

In Calvinism's atonement, the Lev 16 teaching of scripture is tossed out the window and so for them atonement ends at the cross. The problem with that is that as soon as you admit that "not everyone is saved" then you are stuck with "limited atonement". There is no escaping it. And of course Calvinists hit Arminians with that point - all day long!

However in Lev 16 the Bible teaches that Atonement includes not ONLY the "atoning sacrifice" completed at the cross - but also the Lev 16 work of the High Priest in the sanctuary. That means that Christ's ongoing work for us as our High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary - spoken of in great detail in the book of Hebrews decades after the cross -- is part of the Bible scope for the term "Atonement".

This is precisely the context that the Arminian argument for free will requires. As Arminians we need an UNLIMITED atoning sacrifice at the cross AND also a definition for "Atonement" that allows each person to choose to accept or reject the Gospel before the door of Atonement is closed.

Turns out the Bible had the correct model all along.

Of course that does not sit well with our Calvinist friends. Not too much of a surprise there. What is more surprising is that some Arminians are simply not following this Bible study through to see how the Bible has given them the perfect solution for the definition of Atonement.

Where the Calvinist argument has merrit is when they note that once Atonement is complete - the story is over. Not getting saved for those not atoned for - and no being lost for those atoned for -- this results in an ideal Calvinist form of limited atonement - if you ignore Lev 16 and simply truncate atonement with the "Atoning Sacrifice". It results in the ideal Arminian (free will) form of limited atonement if you admit to the facts that Paul admits to in Hebrews - that Christ is STILL engaged in His role as our High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary - even though the unlimited "Atoning sacrirfice" is completed at the cross -- the door of atonement is still open for the sinner to choose salvation!

in Christ,

Bob

First, you do not interpret the atonement by Leviticus 16 or any other typology in the Old Testament independent of inspired commentary but rather by explicit inspired precepts given by Biblical writers. This is not only the modus operandi of all cults in forming their doctrines but especially the SDA and JW cult.

Second, you have not answered my questions (as far as I can see anywhere). At what point in the work of Aaron on the day of atonement did he take a seat? Did he take a seat after the altar of sacrifice? Did he take a seat after sprinkling the blood in the holy place? Did he take a seat after sprinkling blood in the holy of holies? When was his work on the day of atonement finished?

Now, at what point did our Great High Priest take a seat?

 

[Dr. Walter]

There is of course another huge reason that this matters and that is because instead of the Calvinist idea of limited atonement instantiated 2000 years ago - with nothing much at all going on while we wait for the 2nd coming for 2000 years -- the bible model indicates that when Christ's High priestly ministry ends (when the heavenly Sanctuary closes - as seen in Rev 15:8) the next thing we get is the 7 last plagues of Rev 16.

in Christ,

Bob

Again, the work of atonement was "finished" on the cross. It was PROVEN finished by the resurrection. It was PRESENTED as finished in heaven and it was DECLARED finished by Christ sitting down on the right hand of God taking the seven sealed book.

The work of atonement by the Second Person of the Godhead, as His covenant obligation in "the everlasting covenant" is finished. However, what is not finished is taking POSSESSION of what he has redeemed. What is not finished is the covenant obligations of the First and Third Person's of the Godhead in taking POSSESSION of those redeemed by Christ. The Father's work in drawing them is not finished. The Holy Spirit's Work in regenerating, sanctifying and glorifying them is not finished. But the Atoning work of Christ as our High Priest is FINISHED. Now its simply application by the Two other Covenant Parties and taking possession by the Lion of the tribe of Judah.