A Proper Concept of the Atonement

HP: Here we go forgive me for this may be quite lenghthy.

There is a particular way we should look at the atonement and that will be explained below.

God's plan is to save the world by taking people from every nation and forming a new body of humanity. Christ and His death has shown that God's heart is drawn to all people... not only the religious or to people on high positions, but to everyone, men, women, and children of every race. color, interest etc. "Red and yellow, black and white; they are precious in His sight" is not just a littel line from a chidren's hymn. Those word tell a great truth illustrated in the cross. All people will be saved.

Wait you may be asking, isn't that universalism: the belief that everyone will eventually be saved? No it is not. Although we who take the Scriptures seriously cannot believe that each and every individual in the world will be saved, we do have to be universalists in the sense that we are forced to view God's way as being broader than encompassing individuals. God sees the world as a community of humanity. Christ came not only to "save sinners"(1Tim. 1:15) but also to be the "Savior of the world"(John 4:42).

In John 3:17, we can see the universal side of Christ's death: "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him." In the very next verse it says "Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." Verse 17 focuses on the world as a whole and humanity as a race, while verse 18 focuses on the world on an individual level. So you can see that God is concerned with saving the world he created.

Do you follow me so far?

 

As long as you keep glossing over the definition for "atonement" that God gives in Lev 16 and as long as you keep insisting that Lev 16 "ends in vs 9" before the work of the High Priest is started in the sanctuary -- and as long as you keep saying that doing this "makes no difference in how we define the proces of atonement in Lev 16" -- then I would say - you are right.

You only do that because you are working with the wrong definition for the process of Atonement. As long as you keep truncating Lev 16 in vs 9 you will always HAVE to come up with some workaround as you have described above.

That much is clear.

I don't argue that your attempts to solve the resulting problem are not well thought out - I simply argue that you are creating the problem "for yourself" by ignoring the definition of Atonement as God gives it in Lev 16 and "instead" trying to truncate it with Lev 16:9.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Actually - I don't claim that we must wait for some future event in heaven to be saved. But I do agree that the Lev 16 model God gives us includes BOTH the "Atoning Sacrifice" of vs 9 and ALSO all the other acts of the High Priest shown in Lev 16 - work that Christ begins for us according to Heb 4 and Heb 8-10.

Atonement is a "process" according to Lev 16 - not the single "act" of Lev 16:9.

Agreed. In fact if you look at Daniel 7 you see that "Judgment is passed in favor of the saints" -- in Matt 7 Christ said that the they will be known by their works. In Romans 2 Paul makes this point crystal clear "in that future judgment when according to my Gospel God WILL judge the secrets of man".

 

If Christ did not "literally satisfy the demands of the law's penalty" then what did He do "symbolically satisfy it"?

If so then could he not hold up a flower and say "I hereby CRUSH this flower and so I SYMBOLICALLY satisify the law's demands for the penalty of sin for the whole world". In fact do we not HAVE that symbolism already in the form of the communion bread?

In Christ,

Bob

 

You are absolutely right up to the point where you brought in YOUR 'logic'. From there on you make YOUR own conclusions, totally unwarranted and totally DEVOID of true 'logic'.

 

Here is something I read of EG White many years ago, and although I have nothing in her, this was really worth while. She says something like 'Sin explained, is sin excused!'

 

Quoting HP,

"Not only that, but if man can be nothing other than what he is, and for the sinner that is to sin and incur the wrath of God, God is seen as punishing the wicked for something God Himself can be none other than the ultimate cause of."

What 'logic is this? (For example) If man can be nothing other than what he is, and for the sinner that is to sin and incur the wrath of God, HOW can God be seen as the ultimate cause of sin? Ludicrous! No, shocking and arrogant!

 

Not quite, but nearly!

Jesus already paid sor THOSE sins BELIEVERS might commit in future as well as during all their lives, so that it REALLY MATTERS, THEY are covered anyway.

Difference is, you suppose their salvation means liberty and excuse to sin, while it actually means forgiveness of sins and reason for fighting the good fight against sin.

I know the free-willers can't understand it.

 

Yes, all will be cleared up by the end of the post. I will continue tommorrow Jun 18th.

 

Calvinists insist on "slavery continued" so that when a saint sins -- God made them do it just like He is in control and makes everyone do what they do -- so He can still be in control (4 and 5 point Calvinists that is - who teach limited grace). When Lucifer sins in heaven - somehow (they claim) God "made him do it".

The Free will view of the Bible does not support it - so Calvinsits "believe it anyway"

But they do have one point that I agree with - once the Atonement of Lev 16 is completed - SOME are atoned for and some are not. Those who ARE atoned for have no sin and those who are not atoned for - suffer for all of their own sins.

But where the 4 and 5 pointers get it wrong - is rejecting the Lev 16 concept of atonement that INCLUDES the High Priestly work of Christ

 

I do agree with them about the fact that Atonement complete really does COMPLETE all disposition of sin from the standpoint of the Gospel and forgiveness. I do not agree that the Atonement can be considered to be complete BEFORE Christ's work as High Priest is "complete".

When it is complete then whatever is to be forgiven is not only paid for - but forgiveness fully applied to the believer. The Lev 16 describes Atonement and shows us that this is the Day of Atonement service -- which is the last and final service in the Levitical year ... no more sacrifices no more events for sacrifice and offerings - "that's it".

It includes both the work of Christ as "Atoning Sacrifice" Lev 16:9 AND the work of Christ our High Priest that "starts" after the Cross Heb 4, 7, 8, 10 etc.

Yep they get the pure unmodified "fire and brimstone" torment (Rev 14:10) of the "Lake of Fire" Rev 20. They pay the full debt of torment in the "second death" Rev 20 - the debt owed for each and every sin.

When Atonement process is complete - God pours out the Seven Last plagues on the living wicked and then Christ is revealed from heaven flaming fire at which time the "Righteous dead in Christ" (1Thess4) are raised up in the "First Resurrection" Rev 20:4.

I don't know where I claimed that - but if you I said something that appeared to make that point - I did not mean to do it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I don't think it is as remote as you say - some things remain in full agreement.

The Passover predictes both the substance and the timing of Christ's substitutionary atonement for us as the "Lamb of God" our "Atoning Sacrifice". Paul says in 1Cor 5 "Christ our PASSOVER is Slain". It shows us the purpose of his redeeming sacrifice and even the exact time it occurs. Christ was slain ON Passover!

I suppose we "could" argue that God's instruction is "insufficient" and "we don't need no stinking passover chapter to learn more of the infinite depths of this subject" -- but I don't see myself going there personnally.

The same is true for God's teaching on Pentecost showing the exact timing of the event, feast of first fruits showing the timing of the resurrection of Christ and echoed for us in 1Cor 15 as such.

Instead of pretending that "God really did not have much to say" about this all important subject - we find that we must START where God "starts" with us on the subject and taking each lesson HE teaches - ADD to our knowledge to help us understand these events "in depth" rather than just on the surface.

Keeping with that model I am happy to BEGIN with GOD's definition of "Atonement" and observe how HE expands on it BUILDING on the foundations HE has already laid down.

This is shocking for those who use the "toss out the bad bible now we have just the good bible left to read" model for Bible study.

I don't follow that model.

Hopefully we could come to agreement on at least that much.

Ok - well that would be "that other model".

In the mean time - my Bible has 66 books - not just 23 post-cross focused texts.

Err - I hope never. It is just that I KEEP POINTING out the definition I find in scripture and you keep "using another one anyway" without coming back (until now) with either a "I don't need to read that stinking scripture" for the text I quote OR with a "ok I see - well let's see what the scripture says there and use the details you pointed out for a minute and see where that takes us".

Go back and review your own comments to me -- SEE how each time you have been saying that my view is incorrect BASED on taking YOUR definition for Atonement - not mine AS IF I had claimed that view of yours (or even the definition used by the Calvinists) AND THEN drawn "my conclusions based on your (and their) definitions". I did not do that - but your responses seem to post as if that was the area of difference - as if I had done exactly that.

So after trying to point out this gap in my last 3 posts and not getting you to stop and note the differences - I turned up the volume a bit in the pointed language.

In Christ,

Bob

 

When you argue that there is "no difference" between the view that DOES take into account all the aspects of the Lev 16 process of Atonement -- (including BOTH the Atoning Sacrifice of Vs 9 AND all the work of Our High Priest Jesus Christ - that is described both in Lev 16 AND in Heb 4, 8, 9 and 10).. and the Calvinist view that assumes the chapter ends in vs 9 with the "Atoning Sacrifice" -- then it appears that you are simply glossing over the differences. So I keep highlighting those "differences

Your following comment speaks "volumes"

In Lev 16 we see "explicitly "in the text" the subject of "the Day of Atonement" addressed - what OTHER WHOLE chapter did you find after that - addressing explicitly the subject "Day of Atonement" that is unique and distinct apart from the Passover?

Recall that the Spring feasts provide revelation pointing to events surrounding Christ's first coming and the fall Feasts give revelation pointing to Christ's second coming.

The fact that you feel free to ignore the text of scripture - AND the model of "building" on what God has established -- is "instructive" for any open minded reader.

I will grant you that.

In Christ,

Bob

 

#1. Both the Calvinists and I maintain that the debt of suffering owed by the sinner in the fires of hell - the 2nd death - is what Christ "pays".

but in their case they claim the "debt" owed is "infinite punishment - infinite torment - eternal tormenting" as you also agree.

By contrast I claim that the suffering owed is "proportional" Luke 12:45-55 and finite and is completely paid.

#2. I claim that the Atonement INCLUDES both the payment "The Atoning Sacrifice" of Lev 16:9 AND the High Priestly work of Christ.

You and the Calvinists seem to agree that atonement EXCLUDES the High Priestly work of Christ no matter what God says scripture in Lev 16 about "the DAY of ATONEMENT" - AND that it was completed at the cross since it is ONLY the "Atoning Sacrifice".

So in those aspects - you and they agree.

By contrast I claim the Scripture to be accurate and true in Lev 16 - authored By God and infallible and true - unbreakable as Christ said. In my view the FINITE debt of suffering is paid but the ATONEMENT PROCESS includes the Lev 16 work of the High Priest as God says!

If you can START with that point and SHOW that my view is still in trouble - please go ahead. Note that in your comment your claim is that GIVEN my view it still has problems.

Please show it.