You are not logged in.
I was listening to Hank Hanegraaff's Bible Answer Man on a religious talk channel today. The caller said he had a SDA friend who he thought was wrong because the SDA guy told him that the Cross did not complete salvation, there was more to be done. Hank usually has pretty good answers but I would disagree with him here.
The cross was the sacrifice that was totally adequate to cover the sinner in judgement, a preadvent judgement. Most Christians believe that their is a pre advent judgement and Christ as our Advocate in that judgement. Hank claimed that the blood spilt by Jesus was adequate for salvation, sins, past, present and future. Note:
Heb 9:11 But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
To say more has to be done, I think everyone would believe that Jesus is advocating for us until the end of time or our death which ever comes first. As far as how complex SDAs make the IJ this point might be why the SDA's friend missed the point.
Last edited by bob_2 (06-30-13 12:49 am)
Offline
I was listening to Hank Hanegraaff's Bible Answer Man on a religious talk channel today. The caller said he had a SDA friend who he thought was wrong because the SDA guy told him that the Cross did not complete salvation, there was more to be done. Hank usually has pretty good answers but I would disagree with him here.
The cross was the sacrifice that was totally adequate to cover the sinner in judgement, a preadvent judgement. Most Christians believe that their is a pre advent judgement and Christ as our Advocate in that judgement. Hank claimed that the blood spilt by Jesus was adequate for salvation, sins, past, present and future. Note:
Heb 9:11 But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
To say more has to be done, I think everyone would believe that Jesus is advocating for us until the end of time or our death which ever comes first. As far as how complex SDAs make the IJ this point might be why the SDA's friend missed the point.
As an Adventist, I agree with Hank Hanegraaff's assertion (see in red above). The application of the merits of Christ earned on the cross may need current rationale...
Offline
Don, had Christ not risen and sat beside the Father advocating with His blood for all that accepted, would the sacrifice be adequate? If he was not there at the time of judgement, would his death be adequate for sin past,. present and future. Han also speak of having no advocate if Jesus Resurrection had not risen. Why would the blood spilt not be adequate if no Resurrection???
Offline
Don, had Christ not risen and sat beside the Father advocating with His blood for all that accepted, would the sacrifice be adequate? If he was not there at the time of judgement, would his death be adequate for sin past,. present and future. Han also speak of having no advocate if Jesus Resurrection had not risen. Why would the blood spilt not be adequate if no Resurrection???
Offline