Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, I believe "ff" is an abbreviation meaning "and following".I referenced Revelation 22:11-15 (not 11 alone).
It could be, but the cleansing of the sanctuary isn't mentioned.It was provided as an anti-type fulfillment of the final announcement of the cleansing of the Sanctuary through the final atonement when all the work of Jesus has been completed in the heavenly Sanctuary just prior to the second coming and the fulfillment of the anti-type of the great day of atonement.
Yes I could see why you were giving that scripture reference.Revelation 20:1-3 was also provided as an anti-type fulfillment of satan as "the scapegoat" (Azazel - fallen angel) being led into wilderness and being bound 1000 years.
You too, my friend!Take care.
Wow - more "All Ellen White all the time" posting on a thread about SDA doctrines and sola scriptura testing. There is really only "one source" here on CF for that sort of focus.
It works because non-SDA readers don't have the material or background and can be spun in almost any direction by those with an interest to do it.
So I stick with sola scriptura threads - like this one where I quote the Bible.
Wow - more "All Ellen White all the time" posting on a thread about SDA doctrines and sola scriptura testing.
There is really only "one source" here on CF for that sort of focus.
It works because non-SDA readers don't have the material or background and can be spun in almost any direction by those with an interest to do it.
So I stick with sola scriptura threads - like this one where I quote the Bible.
Quoting White:
Hmmm... So prophecies against other prophets? Does this mean Sister Minor failed the test?
Then please take the time to read my posts that have already addressed your question in detail. This has already been addressed some time ago. It was because he was the instigator of all sin. After Jesus purchased our sins through blood sacrifice they were no longer our sins. In the great day of atonement, all of the sins of God's people were then transferred to "the scapegoat" that was "kept alive" and led into the wilderness by a strong man. This part of the work takes place after the Sanctuary has been atoned for and God's people have been forgiven through blood sacrifice made by "the Lords goat" and the Great high priest.
After the final atonement has been completed through blood sacrifice to make atonement for all of God's people, "the scapegoat" was then brought before the Lord and all the sins of God's people were then transferred to "scapegoat" by the great high Priest at which time all sin was removed from the presence of the Lord as the scapegoat was "kept alive" and led away into the wilderness by a strong man *Leviticus 16:8-22.
The part of the anti type has application to the second coming at the completion of the cleansing of the Sanctuary in Revelation 22:11-15 and when the Angel of the Lord takes hold of Satan and bounds him for 1000 years ("kept alive"). After this time all the wicked as well as the devil and his angels are then thrown into the lake of fire where they will all atone for their sins typified as the final burnt offering and the removal of all sin and death from the presence of the Lord.
I am a sinner. Jesus Christ purchased my sins through blood atonement and now I have been forgiven and cleansed from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9; 1 John 2:1-4) See, the discussion on "the Lords goat" already provided. He saves me by His grace every day.
No it disagrees with your interpretation of what EGW. Jesus did indeed purchase our sins. We do not own them anymore. They have been transferred to "the scapegoat" (Azazel - fallen angel)" who pays the penalty of these sins in the Lake of fire with all the wicked.
Correct. The sins of Gods' people are transferred to "the scapegoat" (Azazel - fallen angel)" they no longer are responsible for them.
Read Leviticus 16:20-22. The goats are symbols of Christs sacrifice and satan as "the scapegoat" (Azazel - fallen angel)". Goats are not sinful beings.
Yet I believe that is exactly what your doing with those EGW statements as shown through the scriptures shared with you.
She says "the guilt of all the sins which he has caused " - his guilt in instigating those sins - (the full context you love to omit). #623
Right. So the church voted that Ellen White's writings speak with prophetic authority.
They love EG White more than the ChrYou never tire of changing what she said. She said he pays for the sins of God's people, not just his part in it.
If you can't even say what she said, then it is hardly a defense of her position.
Well, as it is written that those who teach the Word will be judge more...Bob, the point you are struggling over is that you claim Jesus' atonement was insufficient, leaving a penalty to be paid, by a sinful person, for other people's sin.
As @ChetSinger pointed out you don't appear to see an issue with lessening the power of Christ's atonement. However, the statement of Ellen White, which you instinctively tried to change to soften, is in fact terrible.
It has been a while since I read all of Early Writings, but our Orthodox friend in the other thread posted part of this:
Satan bore not only the weight and punishment of his own sins, but also of the sins of the redeemed host, which had been placed upon him; and he must also suffer for the ruin of souls which he had caused. Then I saw that Satan and all the wicked host were consumed, and the justice of God was satisfied; and all the angelic host, and all the redeemed saints, with a loud voice said, “Amen!”
hint - even in the wildest imagine version of your would-be scenarios if Satan had the suffering for all sin in heaven and earth placed on his wicked soul - he could not be a spotless atoning-sacrifice sin offering or atone for anyone nor even himself - since he is still a wicked being.
You skip over this detail maybe 20 times so far.
The other huge gap in your model is that all your associates here suppose to themselves that Satan gets infinite torture - eternal torment for his part - and Adventist put it at infinitely less then that - being finite. Your "satan might suffer too much in the Adventist model I suggest" idea - is hiding that key detail from your own side.
Could one of the Adventists in the thread let us know how often they pray that their sins will be confessed over satan?
Satan -- not as a 'sin offering" - so then not to "benefit" anyone by relieving their sin debt etc.
1. Christ paid for all the sins of all mankind in all of time on the cross.
2. The wicked suffer for their own debt of sin because they refuse the gospel
3. The suffering of the wicked is not salvific, is not substitutionary, and does not diminish the work of Christ.
4. Satan is a wicked being to whom that statement #3 applies in full -- whatever suffering he experiences is not done on anyone else's behalf and does not affect in any way the debt paid by Christ.
============================
At the trial of Christ – His opposers feigned outrage as they bent-and-wrenched is statement “destroy this temple and in 3 days I will raise it up”.
By bending Christ’s meaning they had an emotional whip to stir up the crowd supposedly in faithful affirmation of “the temple of God”.
That tactic has worked a few times in the past.
Hint: Adventists claim that Christ made a full and complete atoning sacrifice on the cross – as also Ellen White reminds the reader - #666
Statements made about suffering added to what is piled on Satan -- refer to “his own guilt” as the instigator of sin. #623
His own guilt is paid for by his own suffering - God punishes the wicked as the final disposition for sin. But the suffering of the wicked does not relieve the guilt or suffering of any person. Only a sin offering can do that - which means only the blood of Christ can do that. Confusing the two clear teachings - is the work of those who sow confusion.
Is this you claiming Satan or any of the wicked are a sin offering... "again"????
So to clarify, when you pray about your sins, do you pray to Jesus that He would atone for them by His blood? Or do you do as Ellen White indicated here and pray that your sins are confessed on the head of satan?
Satan -- not as a 'sin offering" - so then not to "benefit" anyone by relieving their sin debt etc.
1. Christ paid for all the sins of all mankind in all of time on the cross.
2. The wicked suffer for their own debt of sin because they refuse the gospel
3. The suffering of the wicked is not salvific, is not substitutionary, and does not diminish the work of Christ.
4. Satan is a wicked being to whom that statement #3 applies in full -- whatever suffering he experiences is not done on anyone else's behalf and does not affect in any way the debt paid by Christ.
============================
At the trial of Christ – His opposers feigned outrage as they bent-and-wrenched is statement “destroy this temple and in 3 days I will raise it up”.
By bending Christ’s meaning they had an emotional whip to stir up the crowd supposedly in faithful affirmation of “the temple of God”.
That tactic has worked a few times in the past.
Hint: Adventists claim that Christ made a full and complete atoning sacrifice on the cross – as also Ellen White reminds the reader - #666
Statements made about suffering added to what is piled on Satan -- refer to “his own guilt” as the instigator of sin. #623
His own guilt is paid for by his own suffering - God punishes the wicked as the final disposition for sin. But the suffering of the wicked does not relieve the guilt or suffering of any person. Only a sin offering can do that - which means only the blood of Christ can do that. Confusing the two clear teachings - is the work of those who sow confusion.
Now Bob, are you going to answer the question? Do you pray much that your sins will be confessed over satan?
already addressed here -
Today at 9:44 AM #685
with all the details you skim past in your claim that Satan may suffer too much.
hint - even in the wildest imagine version of your would-be scenarios if Satan had the suffering for all sin in heaven and earth placed on his wicked soul - he could not be a spotless atoning-sacrifice sin offering or atone for anyone nor even himself - since he is still a wicked being.
You skip over this detail maybe 20 times so far.
The other huge gap in your model is that all your associates here suppose to themselves that Satan gets infinite torture - eternal torment for his part - and Adventist put it at infinitely less then that - being finite. Your "satan might suffer too much in the Adventist model I suggest" idea - is hiding that key detail from your own side.
They love EG White more than the Chr .
Hey Bob, I know you don't get it. But the rest do. So I will just note that no detail was skipped over.
Jesus died for the sins of God's people.
You appear to constantly complain - that this Bible text "exists"
Lev 16: (The SCAPEGOAT)
20 “When he finishes atoning for the Holy Place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat. 21 Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the wrongdoings of the sons of Israel and all their unlawful acts regarding all their sins; and he shall place them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands ready. 22 Then the goat shall carry on itself all their wrongdoings to an isolated territory; he shall release the goat in the wilderness.
26 The one who released the goat as the scapegoat shall wash his clothes and bathe his body with water; then afterward he shall come into the camp. (Because unlike the sin offering - the scapegoat defiles those that touch it while it is alive)
Apparently you believe Ellen White wrote that and also imagine that it says the scapegoat is "THE sin offering" instead of the Lord's goat as "THE Sin offering" In Lev 16.
Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??
The detail that you think a sinful being can take on your sins? We didn't skip over it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?