Scapegoat-Adventist website: "Satan will bear the sins of the righteous"

[KevinT]

Hey all, I'm joining this thread that has gone on for about 10 months now. I haven't read every post. I did read all on the first page and the last page. I'd like to add some comments:

• First, I feel OP's primary concern is that a doctrine of the SDA church is incorrect. And while I can understand his frustration about this (in-his-eyes) error, I personally greatly dislike formalized church creeds as they cement in a theology that, although perhaps once true, may now be incomplete and just plain wrong. So I personally am less interested in what some small group of approved authors put together for a doctrinal statement than I am with reality and truth -- independent of any official documents. Everything here, then, is my understanding -- which likely varies from official SDA teaching. So take it all with large grains of salt.
  
  
• Regarding EGW, my belief is that someone could be inspired by God and still write down something wrong. Moses was definitely inspired by God, and he gave rules for men who divorce their wives. But Jesus said Moses (i.e. not God) had done this because people's hearts where hard, and he gave instruction opposing what Moses had said. I'm just saying that all communication is fraught with opportunities for error, based on context, situation, changing circumstances etc, etc. So my personal rule is to take what EGW wrote, and examine what is being taught. Is it true? If so, great! If not, then after careful consideration, I set that aside. I apply the same rule with Paul. He wrote that women must be silent in church. Is that a fundamental truth? I don't think so, so I put it aside. It probably made sense in the context he wrote it, but not now.
  
  
• Regarding whether Satan bears sins or Jesus bears sins seems to be a bit sticking point for OP/Tall73. I feel the conflict comes from one's views of salvation and how sins are managed. In the OT, God set up very specific rules for how sins were to be managed. They were treated almost like a contagion, in that they could be washed off and transferred from place to place. Thus the sins were transferred from the people to the altar, and then from there to the scapegoat. But Jesus and Paul helped us understand that sins are really affairs of the heart, and the blood of bulls doesn't really remove our evil inclination. It was God's approved system for the OT, but it had faults and God wanted people to have a deeper understanding in the NT. Yes, Jesus "paid" for our sins -- He had to suffer on the cross because of them! But He wasn't really "paying" the Father for anything. The Father isn't a shopkeeper taking in payments and profiting from them. Instead, like a loving parent who paints over the wall that a child has scribbled on, the only payment being made is that of responsibility. Someone screwed up (us), and someone (God) has to go the extra mile to make up for this. With this view in mind, when I read that Jesus died for us and bears our sins, I understand that Jesus is doing what it takes to win back the hearts and minds of humanity, showing us how to live. And when I read that EGW says that Satan bears the sins, I understand her to say that all will realize exactly what Lucifer did to ruin our world. We will see how he was responsible for the nails driven through Christ's loving hands. And then, apart from EGW, I think for myself about what lessons can be learned from the OT sanctuary service. What do I think the lesson of the scapegoat is? The theory that it represents Satan seems reasonable to me, but I'm open to other explanations.

So that is my understanding of the situation. I'll be happy to discuss what I wrote, but I'm not going to get into the impassioned back and forth about what this or that SDA person has thought or believed in the past.

Best wishes.

KT

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

and that those who continue in transgression must bear their own sins.

That would appear to be a bit of a rip in the position. Implies that sinlessness is on the board for attainment.

It also limits atonement i.e. makes atonement ineffective for most people.

It would be a mistake to think that the selected goat was in fact a sinner, so equating the goat with atonement would be a false connection. We should know enough to know the goat didn't sin for anyone. Similarly innocent as a lamb animal would be.

But we do know from scripture that A. All are present tense sinners per Romans 3:9, none but Jesus ever sinless and further that B. Sin is in fact "of the devil," 1 John 3:8, Mark 4:15 and C. That Satan, unlike the selected Goat is a sinner, per previous citings

It is entirely conceivable that Jesus atoned for all people and did not atone for Satan or any demons, simultaneously

It's a big step in the honest direction to at least get the unseen party on the table for observations, and we should all recognize the fact that our own judgments are partly cloudy, because of Satan's influences, Mark 4:15 and all the other seed parables which directly reference Satan.

Upon further digging we might even recognize that the separation between goats and sheep in the Matt 25 parable does really mean goats are the devil and his messengers being separated from people.

How it all comes down at the finale is anyone's guess