Atonement ‘made’ …WHERE?

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Yes; Jesus' 'Mediatorship / Mediation' is on behalf of the SAVED, exclusively --- the redeemed, or ELECT. NOT for the sake of the lost and damned reprobates.

Because 'forgiveness / atonement / propitiation' was "Finished" on the cross and "Perfected" through Resurrection of Christ FROM the dead, death and the grave.

 

[BobRyan]

Here I go back to the case and context of the LOST and how that lost person becomes Justified in the context of "justification past" -

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Paul is pretty good about showing the sequence for salvation in Romans 10.

Romans 10

8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
11 For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."

Justification happens IN the person's life while they actually are alive -- at the moment they place their faith in Christ.

In Romans 5:1 "Having been justified by FAITH" is a reference to the faith of the Believer in Christ in real life - not a reference to Christ having faith in the believer.

My point exactly!

Justification happens today - in the person's actual life -

It happens because Christ is still in heaven - still our High Priest - Still as our High Priest "the One mediator between God and man" 1Tim 2

Still as our High Priest "our Advocate with the Father" 1John 2:1

Still as our High Priest opening the door for salvation -

He is not still on the cross as High Priest. The cross is over.

Christ as The Lamb of God - provides the payment the penalty of the law demads. As the sin offering he provides satisfaction for the debt owed. In Col 2:14 we are told (NASB) that as the sacrifice and in our stead He took our "certificate of debt" and "nailed it to the cross".

That is why the cross is the highly priestly work of Christ as a "satisfaction" in Isaiah 53.

You have conflated the role of sacrifice with the role of the High Priest in taking that completed sacrifice into the Sanctuary in Lev 16 and in Heb 8.

As Paul says in Heb 8 - while on earth Christ is "no priest at all".

Turns out - the Bible is right.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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.



oh no wait! The NIV is a JW Bible source?! Is that what you need to tell yourself???

hmmm. That is very instructive to the unbiased objective reader!

If the NIV makes a translation that is similar in nature to the NWT, then what is the difference? Why not just follow the NWT, Bob?

...
1. The LXX is simply a translation, and a poor one at that.
2. The NIV, as noted, is also a poor translation.
3. OT texts used Hebrew words not Greek words, thus your comparisons are not worth a hill of beans.

Are you whining because you do not like the idea of 1John 2:2 saying that the atonement (in this case the atoning sacrifice) was completed at the cross? You seem self-conflicted on that point.

Are you complaining because you think the ENGLISH "propitiation" is better than the ENGLISH "atoning sacrifice" for the GREEK "Hilasmos" and that is why you complain about Hebrew scholars translating Hebrew into GREEK in the LXX??

Have you gone sooo far down the wrong road in denying the atonement at the cross in 1John 2:2 NIV - that you now equate the LXX with the NWT???

Is there any point here where you really think your argument is holding up?

If so - I would like to know where.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Are you whining because you do not like the idea of 1John 2:2 saying that the atonement (in this case the atoning sacrifice) was completed at the cross? You seem self-conflicted on that point.

Noted, that when unable to engage in intelligent debate personal attack is used.
Noted, that 1John 2:2 in the KJV does say propitiation, and in many other translations "satisfaction" whereas Bob wants to change the word to make it fit his pre-determined theology of the SDA.

Are you complaining because you think the ENGLISH "propitiation" is better than the ENGLISH "atoning sacrifice" for the GREEK "Hilasmos" and that is why you complain about Hebrew scholars translating Hebrew into GREEK in the LXX??

Noted, that when Bob has shown in the past to be wrong, he resorts again to personal attack.
Noted, that the same arguments presented above have already been answered in previous posts. It sounds like a broken record record player.

Have you gone sooo far down the wrong road in denying the atonement at the cross in 1John 2:2 NIV - that you now equate the LXX with the NWT???

Noted, Bob's inability to understand comparisons.
The LXX is a translation. So is the NWT. So is the NIV.
What do they all have in common? They were not very good translations, albeit some were better than others. I did not "equate" one with another. I made a comparison.

Is there any point here where you really think your argument is holding up?

If I posted it in French would you understand it any better?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Here I go back to the case and context of the LOST and how that lost person becomes Justified in the context of "justification past"

This accusation is pure and simple hypocrisy! You cannot possibly use Romans 2:13 as a proof text for future justification in a future judgment and claim that we are circling back to "justification past." If Romans 2:13 is the basis for justification in the future judgement then there is no "justification past" because any human being that can be justified, past, present or future on the basis of Romans 2:13 does not need Jesus Christ, salvation, redemption or sanctification or justification by faith as their own works MERIT justification before God by the very fact they demonstrate in both words and actions they are as righteous as the Law demands and thus are as righteous as the Person of Jesus Christ as revealed in the gospel (Rom. 1:17; 3:21-22). If you are as righteous as Jesus Christ by your OWN WORKS (which is the standard in Romans 2:13) then you do not need Christ, you do not need grace, you do not need mercy, you do not need anything but your own works to justify you before God.

Thus your repeated "circling" argument is pure rubbish!

 

[BobRyan]

You cannot possibly use Romans 2:13 as a proof text for future justification in a future judgment

The post of mind you are responding is a case where I am quoting Romans 10.

The Romans 10 context is clearly one where the lost becomes saved - thus it is a case of Justification past.

But now as usual you seem to want to conflate the justification future that we find in Rom 2:13-16 (a context where no lost person is changed at all) with justification past.

Walter said --
If Romans 2:13 is the basis for justification in the future judgement then there is no "justification past" because any human being that can be justified, past, present or future on the basis of Romans 2:13 does not need Jesus Christ

Again - totally conflating the two topics is not helping our argument.

In Matt 7 Christ said that the tree is known by its fruit.

Hint: Looking at the tree does not change the tree.

It just does not get any simpler.

You cannot delete the Bible doctrine on perseverance of the sainst with your appeal to the Romans 5:1 context for justification past. It simply does not work.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

The post of mind you are responding is a case where I am quoting Romans 10.

The Romans 10 context is clearly one where the lost becomes saved - thus it is a case of Justification past.

But now as usual you seem to want to conflate the justification future that we find in Rom 2:13-16 (a context where no lost person is changed at all) with justification past.




Again - totally conflating the two topics is not helping our argument.

In Matt 7 Christ said that the tree is known by its fruit.

Hint: Looking at the tree does not change the tree.

It just does not get any simpler.

You cannot delete the Bible doctrine on perseverance of the sainst with your appeal to the Romans 5:1 context for justification past. It simply does not work.

in Christ,

Bob

Rubbish! If you cannot be justified by the works of the Mosaic Law in the past (Rom. 3:19-20), you cannot be justified by works of the Mosaic Law in the future. Regeneration is what changes a person not justification. Justification does not change any person in the past and will not change any person in the future. You are again confusing justification wtih regeneration and your illustration of the tree proves you have a very confused mind. Regeneration is not justification. Regneration has to do with your Person whereas justification has to do with your Position and that is exactly the meaning you are forced to define your future justification as you admit future justification does not change anyone. I got a news flash for you, justification NEVER changes anyone at anytime. It is a change of LEGAL POSITION whereas regeneration is a change of PERSONAL NATURE. Your position is pure rubbish and mishandling of God's Word.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

...........
Justification happens today - in the person's actual life -
..........................

GE:

If “Justification happens today - in the person's actual life” purely, only, exclusively, it cannot be the justification the Bible right through speaks of because the Bible right through speaks ONLY of “righteousness RECKONED” the BELIEVER. That presupposes the pre-exsistence of the ‘righteousness’ ‘reckoned’. The OLD Testament already defined that “righteousness WHICH IS RECKONED”, as “THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS”.

Now it is the RECKONING OF THIS RIGHTEOUSNESS --- in other words, it is the reckoning of “THE LORD” to the credit of the believer AS HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS, that is the JUSTIFICATION of the believer.

Therefore obviously ‘justification’ does NOT ‘happen today in a person’s actual life’ INITIALLY OR EVER AFTER. IT REMAINS A ‘FORENSIC’ JUSTNESS before the Law of God FOR EVER RECKONED TO HIM IN GRACE. (Which of course presupposes the everlasting validity of the Law of God in every respect.)

That is how Jesus Christ at the right hand of God the Father and God the Father at the right hand of Jesus Christ ‘in heaven’ in the reality of the Full Fellowship of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit --- IN THE SANCTUARY OF THE GODHEAD --- is “as a Lamb slain, standing”: “THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS”. Which is Christ’s ‘Priestly’ and ‘High Priestly’, ‘role in heaven now on our behalf’…

…a High-Priest hood that never precludes, but demands Christ’s High-Priest hood ON EARTH and from everlasting BEFORE, in order to have made atoning sacrifice of Himself.

Just as “this Jesus ye crucified” “was made both LORD AND CHRIST” by the fact God raised Him from the dead HAD BEEN both Lord and Christ BEFORE from everlasting, and had been KING, and had been PROPHET, JUST SO, did God make Him High Priest after the Law of Everlasting LIFE: which law after all was, and is and ever will be The Lord Jesus Christ in Own Person Himself!

 

[Dr. Walter]

GE:

If “Justification happens today - in the person's actual life” purely, only, exclusively, it cannot be the justification the Bible right through speaks of because the Bible right through speaks ONLY of “righteousness RECKONED” the BELIEVER. That presupposes the pre-exsistence of the ‘righteousness’ ‘reckoned’. The OLD Testament already defined that “righteousness WHICH IS RECKONED”, as “THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS”.

Now it is the RECKONING OF THIS RIGHTEOUSNESS --- in other words, it is the reckoning of “THE LORD” to the credit of the believer AS HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS, that is the JUSTIFICATION of the believer.

Therefore obviously ‘justification’ does NOT ‘happen today in a person’s actual life’ INITIALLY OR EVER AFTER. IT REMAINS A ‘FORENSIC’ JUSTNESS before the Law of God FOR EVER RECKONED TO HIM IN GRACE. (Which of course presupposes the everlasting validity of the Law of God in every respect.)

That is how Jesus Christ at the right hand of God the Father and God the Father at the right hand of Jesus Christ ‘in heaven’ in the reality of the Full Fellowship of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit --- IN THE SANCTUARY OF THE GODHEAD --- is “as a Lamb slain, standing”: “THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS”. Which is Christ’s ‘Priestly’ and ‘High Priestly’, ‘role in heaven now on our behalf’…

…a High-Priest hood that never precludes, but demands Christ’s High-Priest hood ON EARTH and from everlasting BEFORE, in order to have made atoning sacrifice of Himself.

Just as “this Jesus ye crucified” “was made both LORD AND CHRIST” by the fact God raised Him from the dead HAD BEEN both Lord and Christ BEFORE from everlasting, and had been KING, and had been PROPHET, JUST SO, did God make Him High Priest after the Law of Everlasting LIFE: which law after all was, and is and ever will be The Lord Jesus Christ in Own Person Himself!

Well said!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

"WHERE" was atonement for our sins made?

 

[DHK]

"WHERE" was atonement for our sins made?

Most of us know the answer to that simple question. But Bob is confused. I was justified, sanctified, redeemed, forgiven, born again, etc. all at that time that I put my faith in Christ and in his shed blood. For me justification was then. But the actual act of atonement for the penalty of my sins was made when Christ paid that penalty on the cross in full, filling the legal requirements of God. In that moment of time, God the Son, bearing the full weight of the sins of the world cried out:

"My God; My God; Why hast thou forsaken me."

But moments later he said: "It is finished."
And it was. The full atonement for our sins had been paid. There is nothing more that man can do to pay for our sins--not baptism, not anything.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Most of us know the answer to that simple question. But Bob is confused. I was justified, sanctified, redeemed, forgiven, born again, etc. all at that time that I put my faith in Christ and in his shed blood. For me justification was then. But the actual act of atonement for the penalty of my sins was made when Christ paid that penalty on the cross in full, filling the legal requirements of God. In that moment of time, God the Son, bearing the full weight of the sins of the world cried out:

"My God; My God; Why hast thou forsaken me."

But moments later he said: "It is finished."
And it was. The full atonement for our sins had been paid. There is nothing more that man can do to pay for our sins--not baptism, not anything.

Not only so, but Hebrews 9:12 demands that the redemption had already been obtained before Christ ascended into heaven.

 

[Tom Butler]

Atonement and redemption were secured on the cross.

The resurrection demonstrated God's satisfaction with the Son, and demonstrated the Son's perfect deity.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

............
In 1 Timothy 2:5 - Christ as our High Priest is the "one Mediator between God and man".

In 1John 2:2 Christ as our High Priest is "our Advocate with God" in the heavenly sanctuary - for those case when we sin.

...................

GE:

How can you be so untruthful to yourself, dear Bob? You should have said,

In 1 Timothy 2:5 - Christ as the High Priest of the damned and the redeemed is the "one Mediator between God and all men lost and saved".

In 1John 2:2 Christ as the High Priest of the damned and the redeemed is "Advocate with God" for the damned and the redeemed in the heavenly sanctuary - for those cases when any and all men lost or saved, sin.

You really believe Christ's atonement He made is that wasteful and ineffective?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Most of us know the answer to that simple question. But Bob is confused. I was justified, sanctified, redeemed, forgiven, born again, etc. all at that time that I put my faith in Christ and in his shed blood. For me justification was then. But the actual act of atonement for the penalty of my sins was made when Christ paid that penalty on the cross in full, filling the legal requirements of God. In that moment of time, God the Son, bearing the full weight of the sins of the world cried out:

"My God; My God; Why hast thou forsaken me."

But moments later he said: "It is finished."
And it was. The full atonement for our sins had been paid. There is nothing more that man can do to pay for our sins--not baptism, not anything.

GE:

Thank you DHK. The subject of discussion is “WHERE”, “atonement” for sin was “made” and finished. FINISHED was actually my intended ultimate.

With this topic I meant to bring to the fore a major and important difference between Roman Catholicism and Reformation Faith.

Reformation Faith more resembles the true Old Testament belief of Atonement than does either Roman Catholicism and ‘modern’ ‘Evangelicalism’.

When last has it been seen in Protestant theology that ‘Atonement’— the Autumn festival of OT-faith –, is being explained by and rather identified with, the Passover of Yahweh— the Spring festival of OT-faith?

But like the RCs, Protestant theology and doctrine of the Atonement have become Mell Gibson sort of “Passion” --- all violence, blood and noise. The bleeding Jesus lies the world over in every cathedral and hangs from the necks of every Catholic, Roman or Greek or Russian. The bleeding Jesus has even been taken into heaven by the SDAs.

And the Passover of Yahweh Atonement for sins has been lost sight of, and has become forgotten. The Passover of Yahweh Atonement was the Atonement for sin that Jesus made.

The OT atonement in the passover’s observance was made with the SACRIFICE of the blood of animals “BECAUSE THE LIFE IS IN THE BLOOD” of the animal.
Exactly so was the OT atonement in the Day of Atonement’s observance, with the SACRIFICE of the blood of animals “BECAUSE THE LIFE IS IN THE BLOOD” of the animal.

But notice in BOTH these cases, that the bringing in of the blood into the Sanctuary and its application onto the altar IS SEEN AS PART AND CONTINUATION OF _SACRIFICE_!

THIS is what the SDAs AND OTHERS do not understand! They do not see the WHOLE ‘process’ as an EARTHLY event. They think the ‘process of atonement-making’ is only ‘finished in heaven’ and a supposed ‘sanctuary in heaven’. That’s why they speak of Jesus’ BLOOD STILL BEING presented ‘in heaven’ to pacify the Father (or something) and make ‘atonement'. That’s also why they say Jesus took up ‘priestly office’ only after He “ascended into heaven”.

They do not understand ALL of the Atonement by Christ was finished ON EARTH!

But what much fewer Christians understand is, that this – Jesus’ SACRIFICE for the Atonement of sins – is only the INITIAL PART OR STAGE of His FULL atonement and reconciliation and salvation and redemption, “wrought”, and “finished” and “perfected” : _IN HIMSELF_!

Because it is exactly what the Old Testament Passover of Yahweh showed forth, contained and entailed, that the LIFE of the sacrifice could not with ANIMALS be APPLIED TO THE ALTAR because “the life is in the BLOOD” of the animal-sacrifice. When the passover lamb was killed, is was dead for always; its blood outside its body is its life wasted, spilled, useless, worthless.


Animals could ‘foreshadow’ the DEATH / SACRIFICE of “The Lamb of God”; IT COULD NOT ‘foreshadow’ the LIFE of “The Lamb of God”. Consequently the BLOOD of the earthly passover lamb was also poured out on the altar INSIDE the Sanctuary “an OFFERING”— whereas…

…WHEREAS the LIFE of the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ – PURCHASED WITH HIS OWN LIFE’S-BLOOD –, was “brought”, and was “OFFERED”— “_WAVED_ BEFORE THE LORD” an “OFFERING” and “sweet odour of LIFE” and satisfaction and good-pleasure of the LORD.

In the passover “the first sheaf offering waved before the LORD”, “perfected”; in the great day of atonement the LIVE goat, represented Christ in his TRIUMPH over death. BOTH ‘offerings before the LORD’ ‘foreshadowed’ ‘symbolised’ ‘represented’ CHRIST IN RESURRECTION from the dead— Christ in resurrection “FROM THE DEAD”— Christ in the ‘SANCTUARY’ of the “Full Fellowship of the Trinity” (Klaas Schilder) — “WHEN GOD RAISED CHRIST FROM THE DEAD”.

This, “WHEN GOD RAISED CHRIST FROM THE DEAD” was
“WHERE” the Christ of God finished salvation for ever;

This, “WHEN GOD RAISED CHRIST FROM THE DEAD”, was
“WHEN” “God … by the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe according to the WORKING of his mighty power … WROUGHT IN CHRIST!”

This, “WHEN GOD RAISED CHRIST FROM THE DEAD”, was
“HOW” and also _WHERE_, “God … SET Him AT his own right hand in heavenly Majesty” and 1John 2:2 and 1Timothy 2:5 began to be fulfilled by Him.

This— “WHEN GOD RAISED CHRIST FROM THE DEAD … BY THE GLORY OF THE FATHER”, was WHEN, and WHERE and HOW Christ “made (‘Final’) Atonement for sin … once for all”

And THIS— “WHEN GOD RAISED CHRIST FROM THE DEAD”, was WHEN, and WHERE and HOW “GOD, THE SEVENTH DAY FINISHED ALL HIS WORKS … AND THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS, _RESTED_ .”

 

[scriptmemory]

GE: "a supposed ‘sanctuary in heaven’."

Do you not believe there is a sanctuary in heaven of which the earthly was merely a pattern or are you just doubting whether it has any real significance in the plan of salvation? Perhaps you believe it's just eye candy.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

GE: "a supposed ‘sanctuary in heaven’."

Do you not believe there is a sanctuary in heaven of which the earthly was merely a pattern or are you just doubting whether it has any real significance in the plan of salvation? Perhaps you believe it's just eye candy.

GE:
I on these pages have given answer to your pretentious 'question' many times in clearest possible terms, which is Scripture-terminology.

My first inclination is not to answer your sneer comment at all ...I know you people but too well. For the Christian principle to be always ready to give answer for the faith that in one is, I will answer.

I DO BELIEVE “The Most Holy Place” ‘in heaven’— “HIS NAME IS : The Most Holy Place” perfectly IN “resting-up” Position of the Resurrected and Exalted Holy One of Israel Jesus Christ ‘In the full fellowship of the Trinity’ “When God raised Him from the dead”.

It took nearly my whole life to get my eyes opened to the majesty of the Throne of God Christ at the Right Hand of God THOUGH I have not encountered one sincere enquirer yet who does not immediately and without difficulty grasp the essence of my confession of The ‘Sanctuary in heaven’… except Seventh-day Adventists. They will never understand because they WILL never understand.

So I’m obliged to try explain in negative terms to a stiff-necked and hard hearted people:

There is in no literal terms or concept “…a sanctuary in heaven of which the earthly was merely a pattern”. The ‘pattern’ was the ‘pattern given on the Mount Horeb’ from or according to which the real ‘sanctuary’ of things like goatskins and altars was copied and built ON EARTH.

I without a doubt believe the SDA ‘heavenly sanctuary’ is “ just eye candy”, you bet!

 

[BobRyan]

the actual act of atonement for the penalty of my sins was made when Christ paid that penalty on the cross in full, filling the legal requirements of God. In that moment of time, God the Son, bearing the full weight of the sins of the world cried out:

"My God; My God; Why hast thou forsaken me."

But moments later he said: "It is finished."
And it was. The full atonement for our sins had been paid.

That is a good statement on the concept of "Atoning sacrifice" that totally ignores the other aspects of atonement found in God's Word in Lev 16 regarding the "Day of Atonement".

And it is that same limited view -- where just the "Atoning Sacrifice" -- (i.e. the payment for the debt of sin made at the cross) is discussed and is found in 1John 2:2 "He is the Atoning SACRIFICE for OUR sins and not for OUR sins only but for the SINS of the WHOLE World".

As our Calvinist friends point out - any Arminian who unwittingly limits the entire concept of Lev 16 Atonement to "just the atoning sacrifice" and ignore the High Priestly work found in Lev 16 -- is stuck either with universalism based on 1John 2:2 or else to completely ignore 1John 2:2 and make some wild claim to limited atonement.

No escaping that problem for Arminians that unwisely go down that blind alley. When this entire thing would be fine were they to just allow Lev 16 to speak to the entire scope of "Atonement".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[scriptmemory]

Originally Posted by scriptmemory
GE: "a supposed ‘sanctuary in heaven’."

Do you not believe there is a sanctuary in heaven of which the earthly was merely a pattern or are you just doubting whether it has any real significance in the plan of salvation? Perhaps you believe it's just eye candy.

Originally Posted by GE:
I without a doubt believe the SDA ‘heavenly sanctuary’ is “ just eye candy”, you bet!

Again the, "if the SDA church teaches it, it is false" and "so are you if you teach or believe it" dodge. The Bible will suffice to put doctrine to the test. Paul wrote of Jesus,

"a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man." and "For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest..."
Heb. 8:2-4

"Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary."
Heb. 9:1

Did you catch Paul "quoting Seventh-day Adventists?"

John?

"And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne."
Rev. 8:3

"And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail."
Rev. 11:19

"And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle."
Rev. 14:7

"And after that I looked, and, behold,the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened:"
Rev. 15:5

"And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done."
Rev. 16:17

I missed it too.
Maybe they didn't have the "SDA manual" on hand in the first century?

The Bible teaches that Jesus is the reality of the shadow of the lamb and the sanctuary in heaven is reality of the earthly. In the temple in heaven is God's throne (Rev. 16:17) and "it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." (Heb. 10:4) so all the people who died in faith of Christ their teacher, lamb and priest need His ministration in the sanctuary as much as they needed His perfect life and His sacrificial blood.

No one will be in heaven because of their own righteousness. Hebrews 11 is brimming with examples of victorious people in the pre new-testament times who were saved by grace through faith. Try Abraham, for example who was heir of the righteousness which is by faith. Abel, Enoch, Noah, Sara, Joseph, Moses, Gideon, David and time doesn't permit to speak of all. All these people had faith in the blood of Christ to come, to be ministered in the true Sanctuary when the true lamb died, in the true sanctuary above.

There will be no two groups in heaven saved: 1) saved by works and 2) saved by the blood of Jesus. Jesus said the only way to heaven is through Him our teacher, lamb and priest. God's Son was incarnated to teach us, die for our sins, ascend and minister the priceless merits of His pure shed blood in the real sanctuary to all that died in faith and now live. Take out one part and those who died in faith before the cross are left with no "divine service" (Heb. 9:1) as well as we.

There is a real sanctuary in heaven wherein a real high priest ministers a real atoning sacrifice for a real people who have real faith about His real power to forgive them because of real facts in a real Bible opinions notwithstanding.

 

[DHK]

That is a good statement on the concept of "Atoning sacrifice" that totally ignores the other aspects of atonement found in God's Word in Lev 16 regarding the "Day of Atonement".

There are no other aspects of the atonement that need to be looked at. The Bible does not teach Seventh Day Adventism.

And it is that same limited view -- where just the "Atoning Sacrifice" -- (i.e. the payment for the debt of sin made at the cross) is discussed and is found in 1John 2:2 "He is the Atoning SACRIFICE for OUR sins and not for OUR sins only but for the SINS of the WHOLE World".

Your view does not make sense. You take your view from a weak translation of the Bible and then try and make it say something it doesn't.
Here is the word:

ilamoV hilasmos hil-as-mos'
atonement, i.e. (concretely) an expiator:--propitiation.
--from Strong's

There is no such meaning as "Atoning Sacrifice." The translation is wrong. It makes no sense. The NIV is wrong at this point. The correct translation is: propitiation, satisfaction, or simply "atonement."
He is our propitiation; is our satisfaction; is our atonement. He became that in the past. It was a completed action.
I am my daughter's father. The act only happened once--at her birth. But as long as she lives I will always be her Father, and I will never do any work in being her father. It is a past historical fact with present implications. The same is true with Christ and the atonement. It is a past historical fact with present implications for those who believe in Him. Christ is not atoning for anyone. To imply or state that he is, is heresy. The atonement was completed on the cross. The penalty has been paid. There is no such thing as an "atoning sacrifice." The term does not make sense.

As our Calvinist friends point out - any Arminian who unwittingly limits the entire concept of Lev 16 Atonement to "just the atoning sacrifice" and ignore the High Priestly work found in Lev 16 -- is stuck either with universalism based on 1John 2:2 or else to completely ignore 1John 2:2 and make some wild claim to limited atonement.

He atoned for the sins of the world. It is efficacious to those who believe on him. Leviticus 16 has no bearing on this at all. It is only a picture, a shadow of what is to come. Christ is the fulfillment, the real thing. There is no need to refer back to the OT for our NT theology.

No escaping that problem for Arminians that unwisely go down that blind alley. When this entire thing would be fine were they to just allow Lev 16 to speak to the entire scope of "Atonement".

in Christ,
Bob

Lev. 16 doesn't speak about the atonement of Christ at all. There is no need to refer to it. These sacrifices were done away at the cross. Christ atoned for the sins of the world. Only to those who believe on His sacrificial death is his atonement efficacious. The concept is that simple. There is no such thing as an "atoning sacrifice," i.e., one that continues on into the present. That is a heretical concept for the atonement was finished at the cross. Christ himself cried out: "It is finished."