Sin Transfer to the Sanctuary: A Doctrine of Devils

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by vooks, May 23, 2015.

  1. vooks

    vooks
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    1
    Great Controversy ,Page 418

    -Sin was transferred to the sanctuary
    The Great Controversy, page 420
    -Sin was not cancelled
    -Sin was transferred to the sanctuary

    Great Controversy page 421

    - sins were transferred to the sin offering and then to the sanctuary by its blood
    -our sins are placed upon Christ and transferred to HEAVEN
    - the earthly sanctuary was polluted by sins and it had to be cleansed to remove these
    -the heavenly sanctuary stands defiled/polited by sins and must be cleansed
    - the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary is by deleting/blotting/removing recorded sins
     
    #1 vooks, May 23, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 23, 2015
  2. vooks

    vooks
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    1
    This examination of books of record is what is known as Investigative/pre-advent Judgement and lately heavenly forensic pre-advent audit. It is taught by SDAs to have started in 1844 and will last until Jesus returns.

    When I sought to understand the historicity of this doctrine from BobRyan our resident Adventist, this is what I got
    http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2226093&postcount=62
    For those interested in the birth and evolution of this doctrine, please refer to this thread;
    http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=99811

    The purpose of this this thread is to examine one foundational ASSUMPTION OF the doctrine; sin transfer under Moses.
    Sin offerings and Day of atonement are types/shadows of Christ the antitype. We will for now focus on the type and by God's grace move on to the antitype.

    It will be amply proved, from scriptures that;
    1. sins were never transferred to the sanctuary
    2. The sanctuary was never defiled by the blood of the sin offering
    3. Sin offering produced forgiveness and not transfer
     
    #2 vooks, May 23, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 23, 2015
  3. vooks

    vooks
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    1
    Leviticus 17:11 (KJV)
    For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul


    The life of the sacrifice makes atonement. That life is in the blood of the animal. Let's look at Sin Offering in detail
    Leviticus 6:25-29 (KJV)
    Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the Lord: it is most holy. 26 The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation. 27 Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy: and when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in the holy place. 28 But the earthen vessel wherein it is sodden shall be broken: and if it be sodden in a brasen pot, it shall be both scoured, and rinsed in water. 29 All the males among the priests shall eat thereof: it is most holy


    -The sin offering is HOLY
    -The sin offering is to be eaten in the HOLY place
    -Whatever the sin offering touches is HOLY

    Sin offering transfers holiness not sin.
    Our sins were transferred to Jesus and he paid for them with his death

    Leviticus 4:27-31(KJV)
    27 And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty;
    28 Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned.
    29 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.
    30 And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar.
    31 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the Lord; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.


    Again note the animal dies in his place. He lays his hand on the animal to show transfer of sins and then kill it. The priest makes atonement and he is forgiven.
    I believe death of an animal shows price of sin, cost of pardon/forgiveness

    Note that the priest was involved in the atonement. The killing and laying of hands on the sacrifice did not suffice. I will expound on this in the next post
     
    #3 vooks, May 23, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 23, 2015
  4. vooks

    vooks
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    1
    Leviticus 10:17-18 (KJV)
    Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord? 18 Behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the holy place: ye should indeed have eaten it in the holy place, as I commanded


    Let us set the context of this incidence.
    Not long before, Nadab and Abihu, Aaron's sons had been struck dead. They offered 'strange fire' and God struck them with fire. This set Aaron their dad mourning and for this, he neglected his priestly role for a while. Moses wondered why and Aaron explained it. Here is his explanation;

    Leviticus 10:19-20 (KJV)
    And Aaron said unto Moses, Behold, this day have they offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord; and such things have befallen me: and if I had eaten the sin offering to day, should it have been accepted in the sight of the Lord? 20 And when Moses heard that, he was content.


    Note Moses concern was why Aaron was not bearing the iniquity of the congregation. I personally don't believe sins were transferred to the Levites at any point, but given their crucial role in atonement (sacrifices were only acceptable from their hands) they were said to bear iniquity.

    Numbers 18:23 (KJV)
    But the Levites shall do the service of the tabernacle of the congregation, and they shall bear their iniquity: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations, that among the children of Israel they have no inheritance


    The reason I dwelt on this is because I have heard it severally pushed as evidence of sin transfer somewhat as follows;
    Sinner~~~~>priest~~~>animal~~~>sanctuary

    We saw earlier laying hands on the animal but the point remains, the sacrifice was holy and it transferred that not sin.
     
    #4 vooks, May 23, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 23, 2015
  5. vooks

    vooks
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    1
    Next let us look at the transfer to the sanctuary, the crux of IJ. Again looking at the first quote of the post, the theory is the sprinkled blood in the sanctuary is actually the means with which the sins are transferred in the sanctuary. If this can be proven in the type, then the same should be demanded of the antitype.

    No scripture says this nor do any hint thus. This is pure conjecture. How do we disprove it?
    1. We can demand for proof of this
    2. We can prove that the sanctuary was never defiled and from sins borne by the sacrifice
     
  6. vooks

    vooks
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    1
    Leviticus 16:16-20 King James Version (KJV)

    16 And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.

    17 And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel.

    18 And he shall go out unto the altar that is before the Lord, and make an atonement for it; and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about.

    19 And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.

    20 And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat:


    These verses make it clear that on the Day of Atonement, the sanctuary/holy place is cleansed. From v20, the Holy Place, the Tabernacle and the ARK are reconciled.

    Note that. The ark is also atoned for. Just for emphasis, look at v33
    Leviticus 16:33 (KJV)
    And he shall make an atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make an atonement for the tabernacle of the congregation, and for the altar, and he shall make an atonement for the priests, and for all the people of the congregation

    -The Holy Place
    -The tabernacle
    -The Altar
    -The priests
    -The people of the congregation

    The sanctuary was cleansed because of the uncleanness of Israel. Investigative Judgement theory reckons that it is the confessed sins that defile the sanctuary. This cleaning was during the Day of Atonement.
     
    #6 vooks, May 23, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 23, 2015
  7. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oops... Bob Ryan has a lot of SDA cut and paste / circular talking to do.
     
  8. vooks

    vooks
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    1
    Let us pause at this point and think through what we have learnt so far;
    1. Ellen White taught that confessed sins were not forgiven but rather transferred to the sin offering and then to the altar by the blood sprinkled throughout the year
    2. The confessed sins defiled/polluted the sanctuary as a result
    3. The polluted sanctuary had to be cleansed on the Day of Atonement
    In other words, the sanctuary was a tank, a reservoir continually receiving/collecting confessed sins throughout the year only to be emptied ONCE on the Day of Atonement.

    We know the High Priest entered Most Holy/Holy of Holies ONCE in a year on the Day of Atonement.

    Question
    How were sins transferred to the Most Holy seeing no sin offering entered the place throughout the year?
     
    #8 vooks, May 23, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 23, 2015
  9. vooks

    vooks
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    1
    Meet Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D., Andrews University

    As you may guess, he was an Adventist apologist in chief and a good historian. When he started differing with Ellen White, they started spreading rumors that he was a Jesuit sleeper agent inserted into Adventism by the 'papal Rome'.
    Let's hear what he has to say about the sanctuary defiling.
    Part 1
    Excellent point highlighted there all backed by scriptures;
    -Sanctuary being defiled minus rituals but by virtue of being in a polluted land
    -Animal sacrifices could not expiate defiant sins
     
    #9 vooks, May 24, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 24, 2015
  10. vooks

    vooks
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    1
    Continuing with Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D., Andrews University
     
    #10 vooks, May 24, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 24, 2015
  11. vooks

    vooks
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    1
    and finally, still with Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D., Andrews University
     
    #11 vooks, May 24, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 24, 2015
  12. vooks

    vooks
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    1
    Bacchiocchi is long dead. But I noticed when he ventured into how blood defiles the sanctuary he mentions two folks.
    Gerhard F Hasel and Alberto R. Treiyer.
    These two are/were SDA scholars, and so far as I can tell, only SDAs teach transfer of confessed sins to the sanctuary by the blood. Not to demean these gentlemen but I would have expected extensive referencing for such a profound idea outside Adventism. Google their works and see how biased they are. They are basically SDA apologists.

    I have noticed Adventists like BobRyan quoting 'pro-Sunday sources' such as Moody to make a point. On this basis, I had requested him to share with me ANYBODY outside his sect at any point in history who has ever espoused Investigative Judgement. He could not nor could he admit it. Instead, he pasted scriptures 'proving' that the doctrine is biblical. So I wonder, who else anywhere outside Ellen White and her disciples taught sin transference onto the sanctuary?
     
    #12 vooks, May 24, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 24, 2015
  13. vooks

    vooks
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    1
    BobRyan the resident Adventist attempts a fickle apology
    http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2226736&postcount=1

    Two things
    1. He insinuates that rejecting confessed sins transferred to and defiling the sanctuary is rejecting Day of Atonement. That's typical of the apologists; strawman. Misrepresenting your opinion and viciously attacking it while ignoring your point.
    2. Desperately clinging to straws. R C Sproul used the word 'accumulated sins' as defiling the sanctuary but nowhere does he claim that the confessed sins are the 'accumulated sins'. He is not on your side:tonofbricks:

    Look at how you SHAMELESSLY quote a servant of God OUT OF CONTEXT. Sproul. Here are his 'accumulated sins defined;
    1. Unconfessed/forgotten sins
    2. 'Repeated sinning'
    On #1 BobRyan, my contention and I will prove shortly is confessed sins NEVER defiled the altar and claiming they do and that the same defiles heavenly sanctuary is a doctrine of Devils.

    On #2, you may turn the entire Andrews University and the entire KNOWN church history upside down but you won't find anybody outside EGW and her disciples claiming that confessed sins were transferred to the sanctuary defiling it in the process.
     
    #13 vooks, May 24, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 24, 2015
  14. vooks

    vooks
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    1
    When Jesus cast out Devils, they came out screaming, so am not surprised at all that they scream when we examine this doctrine of Devils

    The Devils will attempt to distract you with noise and other irrelevancies.

    Let's stick to Leviticus.
    Have we denied sin is transferred to the sin offering? No
    All we aks for is proof that sin offering in turn transferred sins into the sanctuary. It would really help if we could hear from the '300 years of Protestant Reformation', or even Catholicism, or Targum, or scriptures themselves. But we have a so-called PhD scholar Bachiocchi who can ONLY quote his fellow SDA apologists as proof of whatever EGW garbage he is regurgitating.
     
    #14 vooks, May 24, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 24, 2015
  15. vooks

    vooks
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    1
    We are examining a claim that confessed sins are transferred into the sanctuary thus defiling it and these have to be blotted out once in a year on the Day of Atonement.

    We know the sanctuary was cleansed on the Day of atonement.We also know the altar was cleansed because of the uncleanness of the Children of Israel. Question is whether this uncleanness was the confessed sins transferred onto the sanctuary by the sprinkling of blood.

    To the best of our knowledge, NOBODY outside Ellen White and consequently Adventism has EVER made this claim. Our resident SDA apologists are dumbfounded. They can't give us proof of anybody who ever did.

    Let us again briefly examine verses that deal with cleansing of the sanctuary.
    Leviticus 16:20 (ESV)
    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


    Note these places were atoned for;
    1. Holy Place
    2. Tent of Meeting
    3. Altar

    A question we now pose is, what and where is this altar in the antitype?
     
    #15 vooks, May 24, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 24, 2015
  16. vooks

    vooks
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    1
    And now, let us turn to the sin offering. Was it EVER defiled by the confessed sins 'transferred' to it?
    The inspired writer of Hebrews had this to say about blood
    Hebrews 9:13-14 (ESV)
    13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

    Hebrews 9:22 (ESV)
    22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

    Blood of goats and bulls sanctify/purify in a limited sense and much more will the blood of Jesus do.

    Where is the one verse that remotely hints at sin transfer? This verse has been thrown around.
    Leviticus 10:17-18(ESV)
    Why have you not eaten the sin offering in the place of the sanctuary, since it is a thing most holy and has been given to you that you may bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord? 18 Behold, its blood was not brought into the inner part of the sanctuary. You certainly ought to have eaten it in the sanctuary, as I commanded.”


    Which part of this verse shows;
    1. Sin transfer to the Priest?
    2. Sin transfer from the priest to the sanctuary?

    None. So why is this verse offered as 'proof' of sin transfer onto the sanctuary? It is a classic cultist practice to throw obscure/irrelevant scriptures at you,leave them unexplained and thus pretend the truth in them is so obvious so as not to be missed. The truth is, they can't attempt a commentary on these because they would run into contradictions

    To understand Moses' concern/question, let us turn to the actual sin offering instructions

    Leviticus 6:24-30 King James Version (KJV)
    24 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
    25 Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the Lord: it is most holy.
    26 The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation.
    27 Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy: and when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in the holy place.
    28 But the earthen vessel wherein it is sodden shall be broken: and if it be sodden in a brasen pot, it shall be both scoured, and rinsed in water.
    29 All the males among the priests shall eat thereof: it is most holy.
    30 And no sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire.


    1. The sin offering is to be eaten by the priest who offered it IN the holy place, in the court of the tabernacle
    2. The sin offering remains holy
    3. The males among the priest may eat it
    4. If the blood of the offering had been brought to the Holy of Holies, the sin offering MUST not be eaten, burn it with fire instead

    In this case, a goat offering was made and it had been burned yet its blood had not been brought to the Holy of Holies. There was clear breach of #1 and #4

    Why was there a breach of #1 and #4?
    Leviticus 10:19-20 (ESV)
    19 And Aaron said to Moses, “Behold, today they have offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord, and yet such things as these have happened to me! If I had eaten the sin offering today, would the Lord have approved?” 20 And when Moses heard that, he approved.


    Why was Aaron convinced the Lord would not have approved of his eating? Is it because he was unclean following handling the bodies of his two slain sons? Whatever it was, he was unworthy to take the holy thing and Moses readily agreed
     
    #16 vooks, May 24, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 25, 2015
  17. vooks

    vooks
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    1
    Let us examine the sin offering closely;
    Leviticus 6:24-30 King James Version (KJV)
    24 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
    25 Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the Lord: it is most holy.
    26 The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation.
    27 Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy: and when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in the holy place.
    28 But the earthen vessel wherein it is sodden shall be broken: and if it be sodden in a brasen pot, it shall be both scoured, and rinsed in water.
    29 All the males among the priests shall eat thereof: it is most holy.
    30 And no sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire.


    The sin offering is given to the priest to bear the iniquity of the congregation. The end result is atonement and forgiveness. The offering takes the sin and becomes holy. And it transfers that holiness by contact. So where is it written that it contaminates the sanctuary with sins?
     
    #17 vooks, May 25, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 25, 2015
  18. vooks

    vooks
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    1
    Leviticus 16:15- 20 King James Version (KJV)
    15 Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:
    16 And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins:and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.
    17 And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel.
    18 And he shall go out unto the altar that is before the Lord, and make an atonement for it; and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about.
    19 And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.
    20 And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar,he shall bring the live goat:


    Let us revisit this question.
    How do the confessed sins defile the sanctuary?
    Ellen White reckons it is by the continuous sin sacrifice as blood is sprinkled infront of the veil(Lev 4:6,16-17,5:9). This happens throughout the year. On the Day of Atonement, the High Priest goes behind the veil with the blood of the goat and sprinkles it on the mercy seat-v15. This, we are told cleanses/reconciles the holy place-v20.

    We don't have any mechanism for transferring sins onto the Holy of Holies, not even the alleged blood yet the place is atoned for. Its atonement as per Lev 16:15 entails sprinkling of blood on the Mercy seat and infront of it. This act clearly as per v20 cleanses and not defiles it.

    So we have an imagined defiling by sprinkling contrary to all scriptures pointing to purifying/cleansing by the same, and then we have some non-existence mechanism for transferring the sins to the Holy of Holies.
     
    #18 vooks, May 25, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 25, 2015
  19. vooks

    vooks
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    1
    BobRyan may quote the entire scriptures plus apocrypha backwards but EGW has robbed him of the joy and assurance of salvation. He has no idea whether his sins are blotted/forgiven or not :tonofbricks:
    Page 101
     
    #19 vooks, May 26, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 26, 2015
  20. Gerhard Ebersoehn

    Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    8,870
    Likes Received:
    3
    Vooks talking to and of himself it looks to me.
     

Share This Page

Loading...