Hm, so am I safe in saying you take the moral influence view of the atonement over the penal substitution view?

Alright, I think i am getting a little better picture of your view.

So, in this scheme you would not see transfer of sin in the daily but in the day of atonement itself?

I would say moreso in the day of atonement.

In other words, EGW saw sin transferred from us to the sanctuary in the daily. You seem to present it as still there, in sinful character, and removed through the day of atonement in the refining of character, to display the character of God to the world?

I wouldn't word it that way, but I think you've captured the general idea. However, the emphasis is not on the refining of character, but on the proclamation of God's character. The refining of character is a result. The goal is to understand and share the truth about God.



One of my favoriate quotes. I think it fits in well here.

Satan led the world (ours and his) into sin by way of deception. He deceived men and angels in regards to God's character. What is God's true character? That's the core issue. Misunderstanding God's character plunged the world into sin. Only a right understanding of His character can bring a recovery of that ruin which Satan's deception has brought.

The last message of mercy is this message: "Behold your God." It is the same message which Jesus proclaimed, which was, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father." As John puts it, "No one has seen God at any time. His only Son, who knew Him best, has shown us what God is really like." (John 1:18. personal translation, by cobbling some others together).

I see that the Great Controversy is about this question: "What is God really like?" God has been terribly misrepresented, and God has raised up a people for the purpose of proclaiming the truth about Him. Every doctrine exists for this purpose, that in it we may see the truth about God.

As I said, I think the blood shows that those sins are forgiven sins, that is, sins which had been atoned for.


Yes, why? Have you thought about that? Why not just an altar? Wouldn’t it be enough for the victim to be sacrificed and offered up on the altar? Why also a building - a two-apartment building?


Continuing with the questions, Why was the blood taken inside the building? Why were the priests instructed to eat the meat of the sin offerings? In your opinion, what did all this symbolize ?


Christ’s sacrifice was made once and for all. But did it serve just one purpose? When you are forgiven every day, isn’t it on the basis of this sacrifice? And if you are acquitted in the future judgment, won’t it be on the basis of this same sacrifice? This is what both services were meant to teach.


The Day of the Lord is not a 24-hour day. Will Christ’s coming occur as part of the Day of the Lord? What about the judgment and the destruction of the wicked and of the earth? But aren’t these two events separated by a thousand years?


Atonement has to do with forgiveness of sin. Christ died for many reasons but, in this context, for two:
1) to grant us a probationary time during which the judgment is postponed. If man had been judged just after his sin, there would be no hope for the human race. Christ proposed to assume Adam’s place and die for his sin, and thus he was granted a second trial, during which he could accept salvation, and all his posterity was embraced in this plan. Forgiveness during probationary time is provisional, because man is free to reject the salvation he once accepted (see Matt. 19:23-35).

2) to finally grant eternal life to those who are justified in the judgment (Rom. 2:2-16).

Thank you for your response. This is more what I was hoping to get into, a discussion of the details that makes me examine my view more thoroughly.

Just so you know my situation, and why I am even asking all this, for about a year I have been studying the IJ doctrine, trying to reconcile it with Scripture. It started out just a few questions, but grew to a long study.

I was pastoring three churches, and just recently turned in my resignation. My conference asked that I try to meet with some scholars on the subject before resigning, with the hope that I could be reconciled with the church's viewpoint. In order to do that I need to still be able to agree to both the sanctuary fundamental belief and the Ellen White one. At this time I cannot because of my conclusions on the IJ.

In any case I am going to meet with the scholars soon.

Since Daryl was familiar with my situation he started this thread in the hopes of getting some answers, though I was unaware of it at the time.

So in any case, if I sound like I am arguing the point too far, please understand that I simply must answer these questions if I am to be able to continue in ministry. I don't want to be preaching with lingering doubts.

I do appreciate you all taking the time to address these issues.

This is what I am still not understanding though--do you acknowledge that the sins of the unbelieving idolator for instance defiled the temple without sacrifice ever being made?

Yes, I agree that blood is what atones--either that of the animal, representing Christ, or the person themselves, if they spurn grace.



The building, as I mentioned above, was meant to emphasize the people's, and indeed even the high priest's separation from God on a daily basis, so that only through indirect mediation could they be reconciled to him. The sacrifice was important, but so was the presenting of it before God.

But keep in mind that from Adam through Abraham's time, and up until the law was given in stone the sacrifice WAS enough, and there was no mention of a two-apartment building. The sacrificial service at its simplest still conveyed the essential message.



The text says to make atonement

From that I imagine it was to be presented before God. The sacrifice was accepted by God to atone for the broken law (now I imagine our brother Ewall may have a different view on this part).

Hebrews too emphasized not only the sacrifice but the offering before God of that sacrifice and the resulting direct access to God where Christ went in to dwell.

The type must always be understood in light of the fulfillment. A


But if the text does not say transfer, and if the sins defiled at commission, I see no reason to imagine a transfer.

Nor have you yet addressed the context of the passage in Numbers.



It will be on the basis of that Sacrifice--and its one ministration before He sat down, which is my issue.

Nor does the fact that one also has reference to a last day judgment show transfer in any way.




An interesting question. I will think on that one. But it may veer off into other topics that for now would be a side-track.

But on a related note that is not a sidetrack, is it your view then that the day of atonement has reference to the 1,000 years and to the final judgment as well?





I see no issue with provisional salvation in the sense that there is a final judgment.

But the record spoken of in the final judgment is not the same as actual transfer of sin. It is a record. There is no indication that Jesus is now bearing our sin. He did that and paid for it already.

And if Christ can wait four thousand years to die for those sins what is a couple thousand after?



No problem there.

But note these words:

Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Heb 10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Jesus is done with His sin bearing work. The offering was made, which Hebrews makes clear took in the daily, the yearly, all of the sacrifices. Now the next thing is for the High Priest to leave the temple, and make His enemies His footstool.

He sat down, something the earthly priest never did, because there was never an end to their continuing work.

Tall,

My husband was finishing an evangelistic campaign today, therefore I had to be present. It's late now, but I tried to answer the main points of your last post. Some things I don't answer immediately, because I think it would be good for some aspects of the subject to be discussed before I attempt to give an answer. Anyway, I hope our discussion may be of some help to you.


No, not the sins of the unbelieving idolater, but the sins of, for instance, the idolater who professed to belong to God’s people. The cleansing of the sanctuary had to do only with the sins of God’s professed people.


Keep in mind that light is progressive.


It must be more than just that. From Adam to Sinai there were priests already (in the earliest times every man was the priest of his own household. In the days of Abraham the priesthood was regarded as the birthright of the eldest son); therefore, people already understood their need for a mediator.


To make atonement, but how?
In which way do you think that the priest’s eating of the meat of the sacrifice could make atonement?


So what do you believe? That Christ is not mediating today, but is just sat down?


If I’m not mistaken you have mentioned that you believe the day of atonement is also related to judgment and to the final disposition of sin.
The day of atonement is clearly a day of judgment. But God’s judgment has several phases. The Bible speaks of a judgment before Christ’s coming (Dan. 7:9, 10, 26), of a judgment during the millennium (Rev. 20:4, Matt. 19:28, 1 Cor. 6:2, 3), and of a judgment after the millennium (Rev. 20:11-13).
The Bible says we will be judged (2 Cor. 5:10). As you see it, when will this happen?


OK, in relation to the sanctuary I also believe it is a record, and so does Ellen White.


In relation to the transfer of sin to the victim and to the priest, who are living beings, it cannot refer just to a record. The symbolism naturally goes beyond that.
Atonement has to do with forgiveness of sin. How is forgiveness granted? What is the essence of the doctrine of justification by faith? Isn’t it in the great exchange of our sins for Christ’s righteousness? Exchange is the key word. Our sins are reckoned to the account of Christ, and His righteousness is reckoned to our account. This happened objectively on the cross, but it must happen subjectively now. Sin crucifies Christ again (Heb. 6:6). So, every time we sin, Christ bears our sin again. Ellen White has some interesting quotes about that which I will post in the other thread.

I will get to the other in a bit. But are you ever going to clarify the context of Numbers 18 or the use of the term "bear" in the other passage?

If not then your chances of convincing me on transfer are slim to none and we can go to the next issue.

I hope the meetings are going well.

I remember those being very busy times.



I see I was using confusing language. My bad. I think we are getting closer...

So do you believe that the sinning Israelite who practiced idolatry and was killed for his sin without ever sacrificing defiled the temple by his actions?




The basic sanctuary service was in place.



Do you have a text that anywhere indicates that Abraham was bearing sin on himself for his family?

I don't.

He acted as spiritual leader for his home.



why not quote my whole statement which elaborated what I meant?



The author of Hebrews seems to indicate that a presentation of blood is necessary.


He intercedes from the throne, having performed the one presentation of His sacrifice.

As to mediating, all mediation is based on this already accomplished act.

I do not in any way think He is currently bearing sins. That is precisely what Hebrews says did not happen. He went once to bear sin. Now He is in God's presence, reigning with Him, having made full provision for forgiveness.


The judgment in chapter 7 is on the little horn.

The judgment during the 1k years is a bit vague. The Scriptures do not say the nature of the judgment.

The great white throne judgment though judges all the dead, great and small. Notice this phrase:

Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

That sounds as though everyone has a part in it. Some are in the book, some are not.

Now notice also the words of Paul:


Rom 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
Rom 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
Rom 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.



It is at that judgment, when all are present, and all admit that God is ruler, when sin is FINALLY dealt with, that we truly have a judgment on the saints. There is no need for an investigative judgment to make sure everything is just because all declare it so at the end.

Note the above text indicates that

a. we are present. Paul, a believer, includes himself.
b. we give an account to God (which cannot happen in a pre-advent IJ
c. we all confess.

This is the true judgment ,the true end of sin.

The other is just the judgment on the little horn.




I am not sure what you mean bye “in relation to the sanctuary”. I was speaking of the final judgment.

Notice what EGW thinks:


As anciently the sins of the people were by faith placed upon the sin offering and through its blood transferred, in figure, to the earthly sanctuary, so in the new covenant the sins of the repentant are by faith placed upon Christ and transferred, in fact, to the heavenly sanctuary. {GC 421.3}

She believes that the sin is really transferred to Christ and remains on Him now. I do not.

He bore it once and is done with it.




You have yet to show it for the priest, and the victim received it and then DIED for it, making atonement.




Jesus already dealt with our sin by the one act.


Heb 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

Heb 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making, purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.



We avail ourselves of this act or not.





The context of Hebrews is a people who once stood for their faith, enduring persecution, but now are in danger of falling away, likely back to Judaism. To prevent this the author engages in alternating exhortation and theological reasoning to show that Christ is superior in every way to what they want to fall back to.

He notes that if they fall away they

crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.


It is my contention that this is speaking of them causing reproach and shame to Christ by their public renouncing of Him. It hurts Christ.

I don’t think this is in any way a treatise on the actual sin of people still being on Christ for thousands of years. He put away sin.

The Bible is clear that his actions defiled the temple, but even though he might not offer a sacrifice himself, a sacrifice was made in his behalf every day, since he professed to be a child of God.


The question is, can a priest bear sin? If there are biblical passages which show that he can, then Abraham was in figure bearing the sin of his family, which he, in figure, transferred to the victim he was about to slay.


This is not necessary. I just want to know your opinion about what I asked, that is, In which way could the priest’s act of eating the sin offering make atonement?


Bearing someone’s sin just means assuming responsibility for that sin and enduring the pain that that sin brings. So I understand you believe that when I confess my sin Christ doesn’t assume the responsibility for it; also, that He doesn’t suffer for my sin. My sin brought pain to His heart just on the cross - it brings no pain to Him today.


If the little horn is a Christian power, this judgment involves the professed people of God. What is your opinion about Dan. 7:22: “until the Ancient of Days came and adjudication was granted to the saints of the Most High”?


It seems very clear to me in passages such as those I quoted (Rev. 20:4, Matt. 19:28, 1 Cor. 6:2,3). The saints will be judging, not being judged, during this time.


How do you view Hebrews 9:27: “And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment”? Is this true just of the wicked?
And how do you view Luke 20:35: “But those who are accounted worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage”? Does God account the saints worthy to inherit eternal life and then judges them 1k years later?


Every sin hurts Christ, but especially the sins of His professed people. Sin wasn’t put away on the cross. It’s alive and well on planet earth. What the cross did was to make it possible for sin to be put away. In my view sin will be put away when it ceases to exist.


Now about Lev. 10:17 and Num. 18:1.
I agree that Num. 18:1 could be interpreted in the way you suggested, but this is not true of Lev. 10:17.
Your contention is that in Num. 18:1 the verb nasa means “to bear,” but in Lev. 10:17 it means “to forgive.”
I don’t think this could be the case for two reasons. Lev. 10:17 says: “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?”

1) If the verb is interpreted as “to forgive”, the text would read, “[the sin offering] has been given to you that you may forgive the iniquity of the congregation.” This meaning is unacceptable, since it’s God who forgives sins, not the priests; the priests just made atonement so that people might be forgiven by God. No version you quoted, and no version I know of, translates the verb nasa here as “to forgive”.

2) It’s clear in the text that the priests would “nasa the iniquity” of the congregation by the act of eating the sin offering. How could the act of eating the sin offering in any way symbolize that sin was being removed or taken away (the other renderings suggested) from the offender? The only way this would be possible would be through the symbolism of the priest’s bearing the sin, that is, taking the sin of the offender upon himself, or assuming the responsibility for his sin.

I think statements like this are getting to the real issue. Everyone agrees that sin is the problem, and Christ the solution, especially Christ's death on the cross and what the sanctuary system teaches. But just what is the problem that sin causes which Christ fixes?

What I hear from tall is that sin is only a legal issue, and was dealt with by Christ's death because that paid the price for it. Rosangela is bringing out that sin is not just a legal problem. Christ's bearing our sin is not just a legal thing.

Here's what Peter says:



Christ's death "brings us to God." This is speaking of a work of reconciliation, of two parties being brought together, which is what the atonement, or "at-one-ment" is all about.

I believe the sanctuary is dealing with this very issue. It is an object lesson of how God and man are reconciled, which is to say, how man is brought to God. Christ's work in the heavenly sanctuary as our High Priest is all about how we are brought to God.

The Day of Atonement is tied in with the wedding, which is about intimacy. It is an even closer coming together.

Christ's mission was to reconcile us to God by revealing to us what God is really like (John 1:18). He is continuing to do this same work.