"It is the blood that is to be applied,
--not "an act," "a great act," "a sacrificial act," "an atoning act," "the act of the cross," "the benefits of the act of the cross," "the benefits of the atonement," all of which expressions are used in Questions on Doctrine, but any reference to the blood is carefully avoided.
*It is not an act of any kind that is to be applied.
*It is the blood.
Yet in all the 100 pages in the book dealing with the atonement, not once is the blood spoken of as being applied, or ministered.
Can this be merely an oversight, or is it intended?
---Are we teaching a bloodless atonement?
Elder Nichol states the Adventist position correctly when he says, "We believe that Christ's work of atonement was begun rather than completed on Calvary." Answers to 0bjections.,p. 408.
--Christ's death on the cross corresponds to the moment when on the day of atonement the high priest had just killed the Lord's goat in the court.
--The death of the goat was necessary, for without its blood there could be no atonement.
--But the death in and of itself was not the atonement, though it was the first and necessary step.
*Sr. White speaks of the "atonement commenced on earth." Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 3, p. 261.
*Says Scripture: "It is the blood that maketh atonement." Leviticus 17:11.
--And, of course, there could be no blood until after the death had taken place.
Without a blood ministration the people would be in the same position as those who on the passover slew the lamb but failed to place the blood on the door posts. "When I see the blood," said God, "I will pass over you." Exodus 12:13. The death was useless without the ministration of the blood.
--It was the blood that counted."
M.L.Andreasen
--not "an act," "a great act," "a sacrificial act," "an atoning act," "the act of the cross," "the benefits of the act of the cross," "the benefits of the atonement," all of which expressions are used in Questions on Doctrine, but any reference to the blood is carefully avoided. *It is not an act of any kind that is to be applied.
*It is the blood.
Yet in all the 100 pages in the book dealing with the atonement, not once is the blood spoken of as being applied, or ministered.
Can this be merely an oversight, or is it intended?
---Are we teaching a bloodless atonement?
Elder Nichol states the Adventist position correctly when he says, "We believe that Christ's work of atonement was begun rather than completed on Calvary." Answers to 0bjections.,p. 408.
--Christ's death on the cross corresponds to the moment when on the day of atonement the high priest had just killed the Lord's goat in the court.
--The death of the goat was necessary, for without its blood there could be no atonement.
--But the death in and of itself was not the atonement, though it was the first and necessary step.
*Sr. White speaks of the "atonement commenced on earth." Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 3, p. 261.
*Says Scripture: "It is the blood that maketh atonement." Leviticus 17:11.
--And, of course, there could be no blood until after the death had taken place.
Without a blood ministration the people would be in the same position as those who on the passover slew the lamb but failed to place the blood on the door posts. "When I see the blood," said God, "I will pass over you." Exodus 12:13. The death was useless without the ministration of the blood.
--It was the blood that counted."
M.L.Andreasen