Seventh Day Adventist Question

Walter Martin was pretty hard on Hoekema because Hoekema used a combination of "just making stuff up" and "quoting from non-official sources" to build his straw men.

Martin took the position that there are plenty of "REAL" differences to object to with Adventists without having to "make stuff up" besides.

(Though to Hoekema's credit -- being able to "make stuff up" creates a much better bad guy).

The problem is that it doesn't do any Good to argue against errors that Adventists also reject. It makes for a silly "confrontation" where the one endorsing the supposed point of error - has not come to the meeting.

The Adventist church believes in Ephesians 2 as do most Christians so that would be "Saved by Grace through Faith".

The real question is - what do the two individuals that you are talking to believe in? Do they fully accept that teaching in Eph 2:8-10?

If not - it really doesn't matter that other Adventists do accept it - you have to deal with the two you are talking to.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Having said that - check out the discussion on OSAS.

Adventsits are Arminian not Calvinists and we reject OSAS.

In Christ,

Bob

 

This is an excellent point.

Adventists take the statement in 1John 2:2 to be inspired and properly accepted as "Christ is the AToning Sacrifice for OUR sins and not for OUR sins only but for the SINS of the WHOLE WORLD" NIV.

This means that Adventists use the proper Hebrew based view of "Atonement" as the work of Christ (Defined by God Himself in Lev16) - this is perfectly in harmony with the teaching that "God so LOVED that HE GAVE".

Adventists reject the view of the Greek Pagans that says Christ "appeased an angry deity" at the cross. (As in propitiated).

Remember - Adventists are not Calvinists.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Not that you are asking to go into the subject of Atonement that deeply -- but here is more on 1John 2 that I have put together.

While I admit that some English translations use “propitiation” instead of “Atoning Sacrifice” it is instructive to note that the same term is used in Ezek 44 where they translate the word as “Sin offering”. Ezek 44:27 “Sin offering”.

So the NIV is correct in translating this as “Atoning Sacrifice” for the “Sin offering” of Lev 16.

NIV


NASB translates Hilasmos as “Sin offering” –

The word – “Propitiation”. Notice the first and primary definition.

Etymology for Propitiation. (Latin – propitiare)

 

The bottom line is that "appeasment" was not Christ's role.

His role was in ATONEMENT and according to the LEv 16 model that process STARTS with the "Atoning Sacrifice" that John mentiones in 1John 2:2 as being completed at the cross.

Then according to LEv 16 we ALSO have the work of the High Priest in ATonement. This work of atonment we see Christ taking up in Heb 7-10 AFTER the cross.

Stopping all of Christ's work in atonement at the Cross - denies His atoning work in Heb 7-10 and rejects the teaching on Atonement that God gives in Lev 16.

So, of course, Adventists do not do that.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Quoting Bob Ryan who quoted NIV, "1John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (NIV)

LXX (Septuagint)
kai autov ilasmov estin peri twn amartiwn hmwn, ou peri twn hmeterwn de monon alla kai peri olou tou kosmou."

Now strange that the LXX is quoted from the NT!
Nevertheless: Note the Greek, how it differs with the NIV. I regard the NIV as a New Age 'translation'. According to the NIV here, "He is the atoning sacrifice for ... (also) the SINS of the whole world." But (your) GR, hasn't got 'sins' - it only says, "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for ... the WHOLE WORLD"! Somewhere else the Scriptures says the whole creation waits for the salvation of the elect (or words to the effect). The world is saved by the salvation of the saved; if not they were saved, the world would have fallen into oblivion.

 

Quoting Bob Ryan, who said, "Stopping all of Christ's work in atonement at the Cross - denies His atoning work in Heb 7-10 and rejects the teaching on Atonement that God gives in Lev 16."

Jesus' atonement 'stopped' - i.e., was perfected - in resurrection from the dead. Ephesians 1:19f and Hebrews is ABSOLUTELY clear on this. Yes, He will return to 'finish' with sinners, but He had already finished with sin! EVERYTHING at and of Christ's Second Coming is DEPENDANT upon his FINISHED work in and through resurrection "from the dead", and its IMMEDIATE and INSEPARABLE "exaltation" to the right hand of God Almighty "in heavenly places". Atonement had been DONE; and it had been OBTAINED FULLY; and what is most wonderfull about this, is that atonement "IS FINISHED" "TO-US-WARD", nowhere else but in Christ's resurrection from the dead. His resurrection is the crowning of the SON, "ALMIGHTY GOD", "EVERLASTING FATHER", "High Priest", "King", Saviour, and, "LORD". In Christ's "fulness" we HAD obtained fulness too, through Grace, by Faith. In our time, it's all past time; in God's time is all Perfect: Past, Present, Future - all, "PERFECT"!

 

Here is the reason - the doctrine - that prevents SDA's to admit and accept Jesus' resurrection on the Sabbath Day for reason and grounds and purpose of it, because this alluded to doctrine of an "investigative judgement" prevents Christ's finished work unto our forgiveness of sin and justification and redemption ultimate, and prolongs it to some future "DATE". Unacceptable if Christ' dying and rising for the sins of many is acceptable!

 

Please note the missing data to support that claim -

#1. This says nothing about ignoring God's instruction on Atonement in Lev 16.

#2. It says nothing about the process of atonement of Lev 16 being "completed at the resurrection".

#3. It says nothing about the "High Priestly work" of Lev 16 being negated or completed PRIOR to Christ's High Priestly work EXPLICITLY identified in Heb 7-10 that is EXPLICITLY stated as STARTING after the resurrection.

Notice the contradictory facts IN the text of Hebrews that would deny the statement above.

#1. Hebrews 7-8 DOES say Christ STARTED His High Priestly work ONLY AFTER going to heaven.

#2. Hebrews 8 DOES say that Christ WAS NOT functioning in High Priestly roles while on earth. (See vs 4).

#3. Hebrews 7-10 DOES point to Christ's work AFTER the Cross FOR US - JUST as the Lev 16 model given By God - predicts!!

Ignoring inconvenient details is not the way to build a doctrinal position.

Christ finished making a "Sacrifice for sin" at His death.

For this reason we see in 1John 2:2 that the "Atoning Sacrifice" (NIV) is COMPLETE at the cross.

JUST as Lev 16 SHOWS - that atoning sacrifice IS The core and basis of the Atonement process. But this gives us NO excuse to ignore and deny the role of the High Priestly work of Christ IN ATONEMENT as DESCRIBED in Lev 16 and EXPLICITLY identified in Heb 7-10!

So the point remains.

This is the "common ground" that both agree on. It can not be used as support for the "differences".

BOTH views AGREE that the Atonement is FINISHED by the time of the 2nd coming because Christ's work as High Priest has ended at then AS WELL as the Atoning Sacrifice being completed at the Cross.

BOTH views accept that the Atoning Sacrifice is the core and foundation for the process of Atonement as God instructs in Lev 16.

Nice "waxing eloquent" - poor exegesis, no text.

In Christ,

Bob

 

#1. I don't see a question there.

#2. Lev 16 denies every aspect of that quote by SHOWING that a REAL and COMPLETE atoning Sacrifices in 16:9 DOES NOT obviate NOR negate the REMAINING work in the Sanctuary done by the High Priest UNIQUEly on the day of Atonement.

The point remains - as found IN the text!

Again.

Lots of hand waiving and energetic platituding does nothing to remove the actual statements in the text.

In Christ,

Bob

 

At the beginning (August 27, 2005 02:01 PM) you, Bob Ryan, referred to these text as would they more “deeply go into the subject of Atonement”, saying,
“1John 2,1, “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
2 and He Himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.”
While I admit that some English translations use “propitiation” instead of “Atoning Sacrifice” it is instructive to note that the same term is used in Ezek 44 where they translate the word as “Sin offering”. Ezek 44:27 “Sin offering”.
So the NIV is correct in translating this as “Atoning Sacrifice” for the “Sin offering” of Lev 16.”
Then, falsely relying on Lv.16, you made this scornful remark about Calvinists, “This means that Adventists use the proper Hebrew based view of "Atonement" as the work of Christ (Defined by God Himself in Lev16) - this is perfectly in harmony with the teaching that "God so LOVED that HE GAVE".
Adventists reject the view of the Greek Pagans that says Christ "appeased an angry deity" at the cross. (As in propitiated).
Remember - Adventists are not Calvinists” … only proving your own ignorance and prejudice, because Calvinists do not teach nor believe kaphar (cover) means “appease an angry deity”. ‘Remember’ – ‘Calvinists’ in spirit and mind – not SDA’s or Armenians – translated with “atonement”! And ‘remember’ for your information, your honourable the Bob Ryan, SDA, that Armenians-non-Adventists-luckily, were the ‘translators’ of “some English translations (that) use “propitiation” instead of “Atoning Sacrifice””! How you get ‘propitiation’ to mean “appease an angry deity”, only you and your fellows would know.
Even so, God was in fact appeased by Christ’s offering for the sins of his elect – whom He ever loved and whom He for the very reason of His love for them, provided an Appeasement for – even His only begotten Son.
I don’t care if you can’t understand that; I myself am unable to – God’s love is so incomprehensible.
Or do you maintain God atoned for something He could live in peace with and not be angry about?
No! your only reason for uttering all these silly arguments, is to steer the discussion into the direction of the SDA-monstrosity of an ‘Investigative Judgement’ – SDA’s first fetter for binding the consciences of well-meaning but uninformed Christians. For according to this dogma God has not brought their atonement to a finish yet, but they await another TWO trials or ‘judgements’, one of God Almighty since 1844 checking (in ‘the Most Holy’) who made the right choices here on earth; and another of the saved during ‘the Millennium’, just to make sure a third time, God’s judgements were just!
What if I am found out to have landed ‘in heaven’ without the required good works like Sabbath-keeping! I guess I shall have to be thrown out with the devil and his angels; and my name will have to be erased from the Book of Life seeing it had to have been written there in the first place by mistake of God; or He had to have forgotten to remove it when I had had no time to make amends for my last sin before I died! Not even the Roman Catholic’s purgatory is so blasphemous in its principles.
What a great pity the pure doctrine of God’s holy Sabbath Day had to fall into the staining hands of Seventh Day Adventism! God must have had a purpose for good with it though – we must wait on Him to see what good, and it requires “faith and patience”!

Bob Ryan, (August 27, 2005 02:03 PM), quoting “Landkarten zur Bible, ... the means by which sins are forgiven — ‘the means of forgiveness, expiation.’ ... ‘(Christ) himself is the means by which our sins are forgiven’ 1Jn 2:2. ... ‘God offered him as a means by which sins are forgiven through faith (in him)’ Ro 3:25.
Though some traditional translations render i°lasth/rion (hilasmos) as ‘propitiation,’ this involves a wrong interpretation of the term in question. Propitiation is essentially a process by which one does a favor to a person in order to make him or her favorably disposed, but in the NT God is never the object of propitiation since he is already on the side of people. i°lasmo/ß and i°lasth/riona denote the means of forgiveness and not propitiation.”

Could God ever have made “atonement”, that is, could He ever BE, “already on the side of people”, had it not been FOR and BECAUSE OF Jesus Christ and FOR and BECAUSE OF His atonement MADE for the people and for the sins of the people? “Never”! So, in that sense, God in fact is, “the object of propitiation” – “the object of propitiation” WHILE God through Jesus Christ is, “the object of propitiation”, the very “Object” of being reconciled – being reconciled while making “covenant of peace” with strangers, adversaries and haters of God; having “made peace” with them in having “forgiven” them their estrangement, their animosity and their antipathy that called forth the wrath of God upon His own Provision for sin Jesus His Christ. Both People and God are ‘object’ of “appeasement”.

Who is the mortal to declare what God is able to? Who is it who says God cannot be “appeased” – as if He could not be provoked to anger! It is those very ones who tell us the Christ of God has not got the authority or power to lay down his life in the moment of His being “God for us”! It is those very people who want us understand God cannot do His job of Judge, of all, once for all, and from eternity to eternity, in the one moment of His jurisprudence in the “justification” and “ratification” of His Elect in Jesus Christ in resurrection from the dead!

The relevance of this here in the matter of “a clear understanding (and testimony) of salvation”? That God concerning Himself as well as concerning His Elect from sinners, had made perfect “at-one-ment” – that is, had been “appeased” fully – in and through Jesus Christ in whom “is the Fullness / Satisfaction (= Appeasement / Rest) of the Godhead”. THERE IS NO SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT JUDGEMENT still to come – “it is finished”! Isn’t that “a clear understanding (and testimony) of salvation”?
No! says Bob Ryan and co. Another and still another judgement awaits the poor sinner – how can he or us or God ever be sure?, is what Bob Ryan is driving at. Shame on you!

 

Bob already posted --

 

However in all fairness you do make a good point. The sources I quoted above that SHOW the "appeasment" view of pagans regarding the notion of propitiation -- are not SDA sources.

I need to clean up that document commenting on this point as it is not a truth specific to SDAs only.

Other Arminian groups should also be able to see this simple fact.

In Christ,

Bob

 

As already pointed out - the contrast to the greek pagan notion of appeasement of an angry diety. Where a sacrifice propitiates the angry god -- is the God inspired concept of "SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT" Lev 16 and Is 53 where "GOD SO LOVES that HE GIVES".

The EXACT OPPOSITE of sacrifice to APPEASE -- is "God so LOVED that HE GAVE".

See?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hey Bob

You have one half of the picture - per norm. God is just as angry against sin as He is so loving. His wrath against sin is demonstrated in the need for Christ to die on the Cross for the sins of the world.

Your pick and choose hermenutic also wrongly demands an "either" / "or" selection. Wrong-O!

There are many theological examples of "both" / "and" Bible concepts. The Trinity for just one.

Christ's sacrifice is both substitutionary atonement in removing the offense and it appeases our Holy Righteous God.

It is amazing that you so blissfully pit the Bible against itself. Every time I look to see where you've posted I see the same ignorance of context and basic Bible concepts.

I bet you won't even get around to the justification stuff. It's way over you anyway since you like posting with your head in the sands.

When one cannot understand justification, then heresy shows up in lots of places.
Lloyd

 

Hey Bob

Just because pagans offered up sacrifices to appease their pagan gods doesn't mean they had it totally wrong. This is the logical fallacy known as the unwarranted associate jump. It is rather common in articles that aren't peer-reviewed.

So take a breath and try not to jump to these wrong conclusions.
Lloyd

 

If you follow the details in the points made you will notice that the CONTRAST is between the BIBLE teaching on "God that SO LOVES -- that HE GIVES His Son as an atoning sacrifice" vs the pagan concept that "Christ so Propitiates the angry God that He finally relents and decides not to slaughter mankind".

These two contradictory and contrasting theologies COULD NOT BE more opposed in their origins and focus.

One originates in classic appeasement theology of paganism and the other in the Hebrew text!!

Inconvenient facts if you want to gloss over the details -- but facts all the same.

The misdirection that says "yes well God hates sin so He needs to be appeased" -- is totally bogus!

In the Greek pagan concept for appeasement - the angry diety is angry with mankind. When appeased that angry diety welcomes and favors that which it was formerly treating with anger.

In your proposed modification you substitute mankind for "sin" but the PROBLEM is that God is NEVER AT PEACE WITH SIN!! There is no such thing as the appeasing sacrifice that causes God to welcome or even favor sin. But in the pagan concept of appeasing an angry god -- the gods ARE persuaded through sacrifice to WELCOME and FAVOR that with which they were formerly angry.

No amount of glossing over this and hand-waiving around it will work Lloyd.

The issue is just too glaring, too obvious and too blatant to be obfuscated.

So the point remains.

In Christ,

Bob