Atonement ‘made’ …WHERE?

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" -

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".

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

 

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

 

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.

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.

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.

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

 

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!

 

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.

 

Well said!

 

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.

 

Atonement and redemption were secured on the cross.

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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,

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

John?

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.

 

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

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:

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.

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.

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."