John, thank you. From what I've read, faith in the blood of the passover lamb saved them from the destroying angel.

If Satan, the scapegoat, does not die the second death in place of the saved, how and when will God eliminate the sins of the saved? In what way does the scapegoat make an atonement?

Lev 16:10
But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.

John 5:24
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

It seems fairly obvious that Jesus is here talking about the second death, since many believers have passed from life to death.

Rev 20:6
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

But there is also a spiritual way in which we can experience death (in a metaphorical way).

Rom 8:6
For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

1 Tim 5:6
But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.

2 Cor 4:12
So then death worketh in us, but life in you.

1 John 3:14
We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.

So, the question remains: did Jesus die spiritually or physically in order to reconcile us to God?

Rom 5:10
For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

If Jesus had died of cancer, or of an accident, or of old age, His death would not have accomplished what He came to do. So, how is laying down His own life on the cross any different?

And what about the example of Abraham and Isaac? The father did not end up sacrificing his own son. A scapegoat died instead. Doesn't this teach us that Jesus did not die to redeem us from the penalty of sin? And doesn't it teach us that Satan dies as our scapegoat?

Mike and Mark: Since John does not have time to respond now, I'd like to comment on some of these questions that have been brought up.

Mike, you said: "…His perfect life and death makes it possible for God to forgive me…" and Mark, you said in one of your previous posts something about God keeping a record of our sins on the books of heaven that somehow Jesus helps to blot out.

In Exodus 34:7 God is described as being compassionate and gracious, abounding in love and faithfulness, FORGIVING WICKEDNESS, REBELLION AND SIN…In Psalms 86:5,103:3 He is said to be loving and forgiving. In Psalms 103:3 it says: If you, O Lord, kept a record of sins, O Lord, who could stand? But with you there is forgiveness…" In Jeremiah He says He will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more. He will blot out their transgressions. In Micah 7:19 it says that He "will have compassion on us; and…will tread our sins underfoot and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea."

When God forgives He does not keep a record of sins. That I see clearly from all these verses. I would also like to make the observation that the word used for forgiveness in the New Testament means something different. It is 859 in Strongs and it means freedom; to send forth (out of bondage). As I said before something more than forgiveness is needed to make the universe secure. God can forgive and remember our sins no more, but until the Saviour gives us His Spirit, His mind and heart, the axe will not have been laid to the root of the tree. Not only that, but sin would rise up again even if Satan and sinners are destroyed in the lake of fire. The issues at the heart of sin must be dealt with in order for the universe to be secure. After all, sin began in heaven where there was no sin nor sinners nor Satan (before his fall). The Saviour came to save His people FROM their sins.

Now, as far as the books of heaven, obviously something is spoken about in Daniel and Revelation (7 and 20). There are the books from which the dead are judged and there is the book of life. If our names are in the book of life then our sins are not in the other books, right? But, as is talked about in Ezekial 33, if we turn from righteousness and do evil, not all our righteousness will be remembered. But if we do righteousness and turn from evil, not all our evil will be remembered. Isn't that what scripture teaches?

Also, Mike, you said at the end of a post that Jesus resurrected himself. You will not find one scripture that says that. All the verses dealing with the resurrection say that the Father raised him from the dead. You also said "...nothing killed Jesus on the cross…He laid down His own life." He did not kill himself; that is not Calvary. Yes, He willingly gave himself into the hands of wicked men; He did not have to do it. No one required it of Him, not His Father nor the law. It was love that led Him to Calvary. He came from heaven to live the life of the Son of God here on earth, with all the limitations of humanity. And He did! He lived by every word that proceeded out of the mouth of the Father, but he died at the hand of the enemy, not because the enemy was stronger. But because by allowing the enemy to do so, the enemy was overcome. (consider the situation with Job)

"Men of Israel, listen to this…this man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with wicked hands, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead…" Acts 2:22-24

The Saviour said in John 17:"I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do…I have revealed you … I have given them your word and the world has hated them." The Saviour's work was completed and then He died. Why did the blood of the martyrs accomplish so much? Because when people saw innocent and godly men and women tortured and killed by religious and self-righteous men, and yet with peace and love on their faces, they were convicted of sin and turned to God and were reconciled; they shared in the sufferings of Christ, their Elder Brother. Men saw in their death a greater reality than this physical life.

May we all experience the fellowship of that death that we may share in His glorious Life! This is my prayer. Amen.
When I read your comment, Mike, on John 5:24 the verse that came into my mind was : Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?" Was Jesus talking metaphorically when He talked about the need to be born again? Or is this a spiritual reality? The flesh profiteth nothing, it is the Spirit that giveth life. The depth of spiritual life that the Saviour came to impart is more real than anything physical. His death that reconciles us to God is so because He received it at the hands of self-righteousness men. It is this reality that convicts us of sin and turns our hearts to Him to ask forgiveness and mercy. Jesus did not die the second death or even suffer it. He did not die the first death for us for we all die that death. The death that He died is a death, which turns us to life, and it is by that death that we are reconciled.

The destroying Angel came to give God's judgement on Egypt not on God's people. The blood kept them from being identified with Egypt; they were saved from Egypt, not from the angel or from God!

The next question is, of course, what was all the symbolism of the sanctuary and it's services? Remember what Hebrews says: "If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come-one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law… the former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God."Heb.7:11-18

Mike, in the last few posts, you and I have been discussing the final hours and death of Christ and where the merit of it is. We need to be careful not to minimize any part of it. There is Bible support that places emphasis on Christ tasting the sufferings of death for every man - that is, His final hours - but the consent of Christ to come under the dominion of death is also important. If it wasn’t necessary for our atonement, it wouldn’t have been done. In a sense, death is the ultimate humiliation to God, the Living One, and it is an integral part of His perfect sacrifice, all of which is the ransom paid to release us from our bondage to sin.

John takes some exception to my characterizing his teaching as spiritualistic. Spiritualism has many forms, especially ‘Christian’ forms. The common denominators of Christian Spiritualism are:
1) Love is divorced from the Law. Mercy and justice, concepts that to most minds and the scripture are rooted in law and define love, become unmoored from concrete standards. They become attributes of a love that defies definition, strong on sentimentalism but short on substance.
2) The authority of Christ as commander of the host, as mediator of the New Covenant, as both Priest and Sacrifice is minimized. With these views of love in a vacuum, there is little room for the intercession of Christ. As Graham Maxwell, who teaches similar doctrines says, “the father himself loveth you”. Because God already loves us and forgives us, the grace ministered by Christ is no longer a remedy for sin. The sin is already gone.
3) The Holy Spirit and/or God the Father and/or the Son become an influence(s) as opposed to a person(s). Isn’t it true John that you believe the Holy Spirit is just the spirit of the Father - His soul? In the case of other spiritualistic variations, Christ becomes a pervasive, impersonal Spirit. In others the Father. But in effect, all of the Deity is reduced to an influence and therefore your doctrine which has had a significant following down through the centuries has been correctly called The Moral Influence Theory. It is spiritualism.
4) The spiritualist is selective in his treatment of scripture because he reasons that he has direct access to the Spirit and his mind is sanctified so that he can give ‘proper weight’ to scripture. The church therefore cannot sit in judgment on his opinions. His mind becomes a beacon of light with the ability to assign true meanings to the text. Meanings unfortunately and tragically that are not there.

If Christ's blood is the payment for your sin John, but you say no and rob others of that payment what will you say to Him? Please, have a second look at Ed's post on page 3 I think - the compilation of quotes from the SOP on the substitutionary death of Christ.

[ September 16, 2002, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: Mark Shipowick ]

Greetings to all

Mike, thank you for your questions. I want to say that I appreciate your questions and I want to answer them. Your questions deal with understanding thought. With the questions you placed I see that definition is needed on a wider base, and I hope to be posting soon. It is important to understand.

Mark, thank you for your effort in defining spiritualism. It is however improper for you to define what I am saying. That is for me to do, for you to see if you can understand, to comment as to why you agree or disagree, and give scriptural reasoning. It would be helpful if you would define what you are saying. For example, What do you mean by atonement, what transaction is it, in concrete terms? I have commented my observations of the discussion on the suffering and death of Christ. Do you see the point of my observation? Do you agree or disagree, and why? What is the vital difference? Let us address the subject instead of all sorts of characterizations. Mark you in the beginning said that we are to stay with scripture, I have seen very little scripture from you.

Now in relation to some of your statements on the following scriptures as spiritualistic or otherwise, please define the proper meaning of them.

John 16:27 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.

Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

Romans 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Galatians 5:22,23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

Galatians 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

In addition to these I have put forth many more scriptures. Why are they wrong? What is the right understanding?

In Christian Love

[ September 16, 2002, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: John Boskovic ]

Mike,
One of your questions, 'How and when will God eliminate the sins of the saved?' From all that has been said I see that the definition of 'sin' is at variance in our understanding. Would you please define the 'sins' in the above question?

Thank you

Substitutionary atonement gives balance to our understanding of the human condition. It brings home to our consciences our unworthiness of heaven’s solicitude for our welfare, but at the same time reassures us of the love of God. God’s love appears in its fullness to us only as we understand in some small measure how unworthy we are of it.

By denying the atonement, John you claim to advocate a more loving God, but the effect is the opposite. Your views exalt human merit and there is a corresponding demerit in the love and character of God. Denying the atonement dwarfs the love of God because the love of God is shown in this: that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for (in the place of) the ungodly. Christ did this because I am a trangressor of the Law. He came to restore me to harmony with that law. Love divorced from the Law becomes an unholy spiritual love.

[ September 18, 2002, 07:10 AM: Message edited by: Mark Shipowick ]

Regarding more scripture, there is already enough here that has been posted by myself and others. You disagree, but many of the texts that you have quoted are strong evidence themselves of substitutionary atonement. The only thing that I think is left for us to do is to discuss our ideas and their implications between ourselves.

We could also discuss the ideas of modern commentators on the subject. I recently found my Volume 8 of the Testimonies. Do you mind if I quote more from there? Kelloggs' ideas were a variation on the Moral Influence Theory, and so, what she wrote not only about his ideas but also about spiritualism in general is insightful. I found it fascinating.

[ September 18, 2002, 06:09 AM: Message edited by: Mark Shipowick ]

Mark, it is true that the substitutionary doctrine does confirm our guilt and our worthiness of death. At the same time reassures us of a love of God through which He sent His Son to pay the penalty so that we don't have to die. This does create a gratefulness and zeal for God and endeavour to do better and try harder not to sin. Though it reveals to us our worthiness of death, it nevertheless strengthens and establishes in man the righteousness under the law. For man remains thinking that it was his sins (transgressions of the law), and they are grievious, for which Christ died for, to clear our record and satisfy the demands of God's righteousness. Man recognizes that he should not sin, but despite his best efforts he finds that he still sins. Man in due course resigns himself to that state and accepts the substitutionary sacrifice for himself on an ongoing basis. He concludes himself to be a sinner and his only hope is that somehow in the resurrection he will be made perfect so that he will not sin any more.
Since the Substitutionary doctrine establishes in man the righteousness under the law. Indeed it hides it and he does not recognize nor see that it is his righteousness that crucified the Lord. He does not see that his righteousness is under the law of sin and death. He does not see that it is his righteousness that causes him to sin. yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. So man remains a slave of sin and is not saved from his sin-righteousness, neither indeed can be. He remains separated from God, and cannot enter into fellowship with him. Man is religious.

True understanding of atonement does indeed convict man of sin. Not only does he realize that it is wrong to do what he knows to be wrong. His guiltiness and worthiness of death is more increased by the fact when he realizes that it was his righteousness which crucified the Lord. When he sees how different God's righteousness is to his own. How God loves his enemies. When he hears, Father forgive them for they 'know not what they do'. When he is broken, and self-righteousness is no more. He comes to God and falls on his face, no claims, no justification, just falling at the mercy of God, asking for mercy. He then experiences that which no substitutionary doctrine can give. He experiences forgiveness, and his Father's embrace, and reconciliation. He realizes that faith is not, believing doctrines about God, but that Faith is implicit trust in God personally. He believes God as 'son'. He now is ready to receive of his Father's righteousness. He ceases to live by his own righteousness (which crucified the Lord) and trusts in God's judgment, becomes a partaker of God's judgment, and lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. He is saved from Sin, and Satan has no more dominion over him. He has become partaker of eternal life.

Shalom