Seventh-day Adventists affirm "sola scriptura testing" AND The 1Cor 12 gift of prophecy

[LoveGodsWord]

I wanted you to clarify what she said about the one sentence. But Bob has put a gag order on that now. No more applying Scripture to Ellen White in this thread, though it is a thread on Scripture testing and the prophetic gift. So by all means, don't answer.

I did answer your earlier question in regards to what I thought that EGW statement means by showing what it means through the scriptures. I believe that the quote was in context to our discussion in regards to the type and anti-types of the great day of atonement (the yearly ministration of the Priesthood) in the most holy place of the Sanctuary for the final atonement of cleansing of sin through blood sacrifice) is only opened to those who through repentance of sin and confession of sin and transference of sin through blood sacrifice (paying the penalty of sin) and blood atonement in the daily sin offerings and collectively through "the Lords goat" with intercession of Great High Priest and blood atonement for God's forgiveness of sin.

This links directly to the three angels messages of Revelation 14:6-12 and also to the 4th Angel of Revelation 18:1-5 where God calls all His people to come out from following man-made teachings and traditions that break the commandments of God and return to his Word. This of course is all over worship. Who do we choose to worship? God or man? For God is calling us all to "Remember" the Sabbath day to keep it holy and the hour of his judgment is come: and to worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. *Revelation 14:6. If any man worship the Beast and his image (Sunday worship) they will receive the Mark of the Beast. This takes place only once worship is enforced by civil law (Revelation 13).

According to the scriptures, only those who keep all the commandments of God are Gods' saints (Revelation 14:12) and enter in though the gates into Gods city *Revelation 22:14. If we reject God's Word in order to continue in known unrepentant sin God will reject us and we will have our lot with the wicked.

What was it that you did not agree with in my comment on that quote and the scriptures provided here?

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Yes, very much. He bears an incredible load of guilt for temptation, leading us into sin, etc.

Agreed.

LoveGodsWord wrote: Isn't this simply a spin on words for backtracking in your original response that says that God holds us accountable for leading others into sin? Is what your saying here in agreement the words of Jesus recorded in Matthew?

Matthew 18:1-6 is that says; [1], At the same time came the disciples to Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? [2], And Jesus called a little child to him, and set him in the middle of them, [3], And said, Truly I say to you, Except you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. [4], Whoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. [5], And whoever shall receive one such little child in my name receives me. [6], But if you cause one of these little ones who trusts in me to fall into sin, it would be better for you to have a large millstone tied around your neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea.

The point I am making here is that if according to the scriptures God holds any of us accountable for leading (tempting) His children (those who believe and follow God's Word) away from Gods' Word into sin. How can he now hold Satan accountable for leading Gods' people into sin through tempting them to sin? Your view is not consistent with scripture is it?

Your response here...

No, not at all, He is responsible for leading people into sin. He is not responsible for your sin that you led yourself into.

Jas 1:14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.

The devil didn't make you do all of your sin. The Scriptures say that you were tempted when you were lured by what? Your own desire. satan certainly tempts, and is certainly going to pay for it. But not all of your sin is his doing.

You say no but I see your response here in disagreement with these scriptures in Matthew 18:1-6; Isaiah 56:10-12; Jeremiah 25:34-38; Jeremiah 50:6-7; Ezekiel 34:2-10; and especially in view of Ezekiel 3:17-20.

Ezekiel 3:17-20 [17], Son of man, I have made you a watchman to the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me. [18], When I say to the wicked, You shall surely die; and you give him not warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at your hand. [19], Yet if you warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul. [20], Again, When a righteous man does turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumbling-block before him, he shall die: because you have not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at your hand.

The context of Ezekiel is if we do not warn the sinner of their sins they will surely die and their blood will be required of us if we do not warn the sinners against sinning. While Matthew 18:1-6 is saying if we lead any of Gods' children into sin we will be held accountable to God for doing this. These are Gods Words not mine. If God holds us all accountable for sin and even the righteous accountable for leading others in to sin or being silent when someone is practicing sin and not warning them to depart from sin. Why would you think that Jesus represents "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") and not Satan who is kept alive until the Lake of fire *Revelation 20 (notice I underlined the word Jesus here)?

He DOES hold satan responsible for leading people into sin, tempting, etc. Those are his sins. But you have sins that you didn't need satan there tempting you at all to commit, per James;

Jas 1:14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.
Jas 1:15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

But of course, satan pays for his sins, including temptation. He doesn't pay for all the sins of God's people. satan didn't make you do all of your sins LGW.

Jas 1:14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.
Jas 1:15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

I believe what your saying could be correct if we are only considering someone that has sin whose sins have not been atoned for through blood sacrifice but we are not though are we. That is not the context of our discussion therefore not relevant to our conversation. The context of our discussion is in regards to sin atonement through blood sacrifice and the cleansing of the sanctuary from all the sins of God's people that have been brought into it through the daily ministration of the Priesthood through sin offerings.

According to the scriptures, the cleansing of the sanctuary from all the sins of God's people and the final collective atonement for all the sins of God's people is only completed through blood sacrifice of "the Lords goat" through blood sacrifice and the intercession of the High Priest making the final collective atonement and cleansing of the sanctuary through the blood offered by the "Lords goat".

The yearly day of atonement is for the cleansing of the sanctuary and the final atonement and removal of all the sins of God's people from the presence of God. This is only achieved through blood sacrifice representing Jesus purchasing our sins through hid death on the cross and his intercession on our behalf in the Heavenly sanctuary.

The removal of all sin does not take place until after all the sins of Gods' people have been cleansed from the sanctuary and collectively atoned for through the blood sacrifice of "the Lords goat" At this point Gods' people do not own their sins anymore. They have been purchased by Jesus through blood sacrifice.

I think what your not considering here in the transferring of all the sins of God's people to "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "removal" "fallen angel") as stated in the scriptures is not atonement for Gods' people but is atonement for God's people between God and "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "removal" "fallen angel") not God's people and the scapegoat. The atonement of God's people have already been completed through blood sacrifice of "the Lords goat". The removal of all the sins of God's people from the presence of God is between God and the scapegoat as shown here...

Leviticus 16:10 [10], But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.

Jesus purchased our sins with his own death paying the penalty for them and through his own blood making intercession for them before God so that we can all receive God's forgiveness. If God wants to transfer all the sins of Gods' people that he purchased through blood sacrifice to the originator of all sin being Satan ("the scapegoat"; Azazel; "remove" "fallen angel") who are you to say he cannot? (Leviticus 16:20-22; Revelation 20:1-3). You have not proven your view through the scriptures here but simply denied the scriptures shared with you.

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

tall73 said: ↑

If he was not convinced your evidence is strong, why would he have to present anything? He is evaluating your argument, and your evidence, that you presented. That requires no presentation on his part.



He made a claim that you haven't proven it was true. He said it was your contention and you have the burden of proof. You feel you met that. He doesn't. He is not required to do anything regarding that.



He doesn't need to provide evidence against your view for you to fail to convince him of your view. He just has to assess that your evidence is not sufficient to prove your point.

Now if you want to schedule a formal debate, or wish to draw from him some affirmative or negative position that you want him to defend, then propose that. If he agreed to those terms he would then have the burden of proof.

Your just repeating yourself here. As posted earlier, I am sorry dear friend but I respectfully disagree with you. If you make a claim something is not true or cannot be true then that is something you need to be able to show why it is not true. This of course was in light of providing collective evidence not isolated individual sources proving that "the scapegoat" (Azazel; "remove" "fallen angel") represents Satan as the instigator of all sin who has all the sins that he caused Gods' people to sin transferred to him as the penalty in regards to his part in leading God's people away from God and His Word.

Collective evidence has been provided through (1). Scripture but included; (2). Jewish commentary on the Torah; (3). Book of Enoch (Apocrypha) Azazel is the leader of the fallen angels; (4). Hebrew dictionary and Lexicon meaning of "the scapegoat" (Azazel; "remove" "fallen angel"); (5). The symbol of a goat represents Satan in the occult. Now even Leaf admitted there were strong links here showing Satan as representing "the scapegoat" (Azazel; "remove" "fallen angel") as Satan.

Keep in mind here that we are not talking about one of individual source here but all 5 sources highlighted above are all in agreement together just making the evidence stronger. What has been provided in response to disprove the above? - Nothing! I am sorry the rest of your post is simply an opinion which I do not believe or think relevant so we will have to agree to disagree here. Sorry.

Do you have anything else new to bring to the discussion?

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

He has said he doesn't think that. So if you followed his statements well, how have you not picked up on that?



Did he allege it was a who?

For instance, some see the goat as a means of conveyance of sin out of the camp, so not representing a "who" at all, other than a goat.



@Leaf473 said he didn't think it was strong.


See above. He didn't allege it had to be Jesus. He in fact said that was a false dichotomy. How did you not notice that if you are following his statements carefully?

Sorry I respectfully disagree. As posted earlier, the scapegoat can only represent Jesus or Satan right? Who else can the scapegoat represent? Now plenty of evidence has been provided supporting the view that "the scapegoat" (Azazel; "remove" "fallen angel") represents Satan. Nothing has been provided from the scriptures showing that shows Jesus is "the scapegoat" (Azazel; "remove" "fallen angel"). In fact this view is impossible according to the scriptures. So who else can "the scapegoat" (Azazel; "remove" "fallen angel") represent? As shown through the scriptures already it is impossible for "the scapegoat" (Azazel; "remove" "fallen angel") to represent Jesus as that interpretation makes blood sacrifice and atonement of "the Lords goat" not sufficient and makes a mockery of the death of Jesus.

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

BobRyan said: ↑ I think you can't make your case from the Bible and also can't make it with those who have actually read the sources ... so you choose to present your "All Ellen White" posts to non-SDAs

Your response here...

Bob, are you going to bear false witness?

Why do you accuse @BobRyan of lying here when what he has said is only being honest with you? I have asked you many times now to make your case for your claims that Jesus represents "the scapegoat" (Azazel; "remove" "fallen angel") and have even provided scriptures showing why it is impossible that Jesus is the scapegoat and how this claim makes of non effect blood atonement and the sacrifice of Christ. Your responses have simply been to try and quote EGW and put interpretations on her quotes that are not intended, even after you had been shown by scriptures that those interpretation your trying to apply to those quotes are not what she was saying or what any SDA believes. I do not think that @BobRyan was the one bearing false witness here.

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I can't discuss Ellen White's statement here now by Bob's rule, so I can't look at the details. You may want to limit your discussion too so as to not run afoul of Bob's edited in his OP.

But I will note that far from disagreeing with you, I agree. Most Adventists of course do not believe what Ellen White said on this matter. And they should not!

But they are in the very awkward position of defending what she said nonetheless, because they hold her writings to be inspired. Which is why they try very hard to change what she said on some points, claim they are being twisted, and run from her statements, and don't want them to be discussed on a thread about testing things by scripture, and discussing the prophetic gift.

Do I think Adventists believe satan pays the price for their sins? No, not most Adventists. Do I believe that Adventists don't actually want to discuss what Ellen White wrote on the matter, because it is in fact quite disturbing? Yes, I believe that. And it is plain to those reading the thread. And it is why Bob, who admits that some like him who have read Ellen White for years, don't want to discuss her here, even though they think she is inspired, and want to see her writings spread everywhere.

No my meaning was most SDA's do not believe your interpretation of what EGW has said. This has also been pointed out to you a number of times in this thread already.

 

[BobRyan]

Do I believe that Adventists don't actually want to discuss what Ellen White wrote on the matter, because it is in fact quite disturbing? Yes, I believe that.

1. Do I think Adventists want to have "all Ellen White all the time discussions" with non-SDA rather than go to the Bible for Bible teaching/Doctrine? -- no.

2. Do I think Adventists love to have these "all Ellen White all the time" sorts of discussions when doctrinal differences don't actually exist in the discussion group ... so then among SDA's?? yes a lot of them do like doing that.

 

[BobRyan]

No my meaning was most SDA's do not believe your interpretation of what EGW has said. This has also been pointed out to you a number of times in this thread already.

And of course if they DID agree with his interpretation - then the topic would be perfect for bringing up in the SDA subforum on CF that is for actual SDAs that believe in SDA doctrine --.. so -- that is "the tell" when it comes to that point about what people are really thinking.

 

[tall73]

1. Most Adventist read her published works - not so much your interest in her "unpublished" comments and letters.

I see you still did not allow me to respond regarding Ellen White, but still want to weigh in without me being able to respond. I guess you don't want folks to hear the response.

 

[tall73]

1. Do I think Adventists want to have "all Ellen White all the time discussions" with non-SDA rather than go to the Bible for Bible teaching/Doctrine? -- no.

2. Do I think Adventists love to have these "all Ellen White all the time" sorts of discussions when doctrinal differences don't actually exist in the discussion group ... so then among SDA's?? yes a lot of them do like doing that.

So you really do love Ellen White all the time, but don't want folks who might not agree with the party line.

Thanks for admitting it Bob.

 

[Leaf473]

This is repetition already addressed in a detailed response from the scriptures
Take Care.

I agree, it looks like something got posted twice.

This is one of the issues that come about from me trying to deal with long posts on a cell phone screen.

 

[Leaf473]

Prophets speak with prophetic authority -
God communicates with Prophets as He says in Numbers 12:5-6

Sounds good so far.
Then what is the test that SDA's use to see if someone has had this experience of God communicating with them?

I'm about 150 posts behind right now, so you may have answered this already

 

[Leaf473]

@Leaf473 since the original was addressed to you, I tagged the response.



These two reduce to the same because the one is based on the other.



Which actually shows multiple views, and the one of "total removal" is listed first, before your fallen angel theory. And the fallen angel theory also refers back to Enoch etc.

And the LXX is also a Jewish source, around the same time as Enoch, and the translation supports the removal view.

Not to mention that some of the scholars who think it is a demon think it was borrowed from other near-eastern elimination rites, and was stuck in the text as a second source which doesn't match the first.

Moreover, those who hold that view see azazel not as the goat, but as the one the goat is for, sent to in the wilderness, where they see the demon residing.

Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Unabridged - H5799
H5799. Azazel; עֲזָאזֵל noun [masculine] entire removal (reduplicated intensive (Ges§ 30 n. Sta§ 124 a), abstract, √ [עזל] = Arabic remove, see BährSymb. ii. 668 Winii. 659 ff. Me SchenkelBL. i. 256;

This is an etymology distinct from the notion it is a proper name. Hence, they refer to this being the result of the reduplicated intensive. It is not supporting your view.

The notion of a fallen angel was a later one. The rite actually describes the first view--"total removal" of sin from the camp.




Self-referential sources and also referring to a more straight-forward meaning in line with the text that disagrees with your other sources.



Yes, and you will notice that is where the scholars who take that view see satan as dwelling, and do not see the goat as satan, but sent to azazel.




You want us to study what the Day of Atonement was about by studying later Jewish sources outside of Scripture and looking at how satanists portray satan in a thread on Scripture testing? Really?

Thanks for the more in-depth assessment.

 

[tall73]

a wicked "satan" suffering for sin and a wicked human suffering for sin are the same in that none of that reduces the guilt of anyone.

No Bob. You just changed both to "sin" and tried to distract from the fact that you have not addressed which sin, which is the whole issue.

A wicked human suffering for his own sin and a wicked satan suffering for his own sin, including temptation, and ruin of souls, are the same. They have no substitute. They suffer for their own sins.

A wicked satan paying for the sins of God's people is a figment of EGW's imagination that totally discounts Christ who already paid for their sin.

 

[tall73]

Then it's time to present your scriptures after all these pages on the subject

Hey Bob. Did I, or did I not post many Scriptures to you on this thread, and not just Ellen White all the time?

Do you not expect your case could come before the ij any moment?

 

[tall73]

1. Most Adventist read her published works - not so much your interest in her "unpublished" comments and letters.

Bob, since you keep discussing Ellen White you apparently don't have a problem with Ellen White after all in this thread. And since it is on topic to scripture testing and the prophetic gift, I will respond.

Lt 8, 1850

Tell them to pray much that their sins may be confessed upon the head of the scapegoat and borne away into the land of forgetfulness.

You make the test whether it is published. Ellen White does say her published material is not her own opinion:

The statement which you quote from "Testimony," No. 31, that "in these letters which I wrote, in the Testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper, expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision -- the precious rays of light shining from the throne," is correct. It is true concerning the articles in our papers and in the many volumes of my books. I have been instructed in accordance with the Word in the precepts of the law of God. I have been instructed in selecting from the lessons of Christ. {RH, September 6, 1906 par. 1}


But that is not the only indicator of whether a letter from Ellen White is claiming to contain inspired information.


a. The letter references a vision, and states that the Lord showed her x, y, z, she asked questions of an angel, etc. This alone counters the notion you have presented that this cannot purport to contain inspired material

b. The letter also contains advice directly to the recipient, along with exhortation to endure, to keep separate from the world, to be diligent, directions as to what to do "if you would come off victorious", etc.

Do not mingle with the world; keep separate from them. If you mingle with them, you will surely lose strength. Seek to live near to God and to hold sweet communion with Him. Be diligent to make your calling and election sure. I believe God loves you and will save you if you hold fast whereunto you have attained. Everything and everyone is coming to naught but those who have this truth in them—the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. Remember, sister, if you would come off victorious you must overcome by the blood of the Lamb and the word of your testimony. We are in a glorious cause that will triumph and that will never come to naught. Eternal life we are striving for. It is not for any riches or honor in this world, but it is for a home in glory, an enduring substance the beauty of which will never wear away, and its glory will never vanish.

Remember, the Master of the house became poor, that we through His poverty might be made rich. We must be willing to be despised and trodden under foot here. We are soon to be exalted to a home in glory, a treasure in the heavens. Praise the Lord, we will go through and behold Him whom our souls admire. Press, press, dear sister, to the mark of the prize. Have faith in God. Endure trials; be patient in tribulations. Pray, pray much. Keep the victory above the powers of darkness.

Ellen White not only said her books and articles were not her opinion, but indicated when she wrote letters to people she was telling them what God wanted them to know, often warning, etc .

You might say that this communication was only a letter. Yes, it was a letter, but prompted by the Spirit of God, to bring before your minds things that had been shown me. In these letters which I write, in the testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me.
{5T 67.2}


C. You allege Adventists don't read comments like this. But the White Estate were the ones who published them to their website. And they were the ones who posted them in an article on Ellen White and the scapegoat.

Ellen G. White® Estate: The Scapegoat in the Writings of Ellen G. White

And the statement was referenced in Ministry Magazine which goes to Adventist ministers.

Ministry Magazine | The Scapegoat in the Writings of Ellen G. White¹

I am sure they don't publish every shopping list, or her discussion at the dinner table. But they do publish those things which they see as containing inspired information.

So the question is why did you want to discount this letter Bob? Does it bother you that she says to pray that your sins might be confessed on the scapegoat, which in her thought, is satan? Do you think anything in her statement is incorrect? Is there some reason you think it is not inspired?

Do you want to try to say that is not inspired, because it is outrageous and ludicrous ? Well it is outrageous and ludicrous to pray that your sins be confessed over satan. So perhaps that is why you wanted to discount it.

 

[Leaf473]

true. but 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.

Thanks for the Post.

I think it's when I read statements either by White or anyone here on this thread who is generally in favor of SDA doctrines talk about Satan paying the final penalty for our sins or in some way paying a price for our sins that I see the implication that he is suffering or dying on behalf of our sins.

But if what is really meant is that
"...whatever suffering {or death?} he experiences is not done on anyone else's behalf..."
then that changes things.

If that's the case, then I would just say that White's wording and similar kinds of phrases are maybe not the best way to word it.

Did White use an editor? Or are we basically reading pretty much what came out of her pen the first time?

 

[tall73]

@Leaf473 including you on this as it relates to a view that does not see the goat for azazel as either Christ or satan, a possibility which you referenced, but which LGW dismissed.


tall73 said: ↑

the scapegoat makes atonement.

The Bible says:
Lev 16:10 but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the LORD to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel.

But not as a sin offering - it is alive and pollutes anyone who touches it. .

Yes, Bob, the Scriptures say the goat for azazel is alive, and sent to the wilderness. It also says it is used to make atonement.

Lev 16:7 Then he shall take the two goats and set them before the LORD at the entrance of the tent of meeting.
Lev 16:8 And Aaron shall cast lots over the two goats, one lot for the LORD and the other lot for Azazel.
Lev 16:9 And Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the LORD and use it as a sin offering,
Lev 16:10 but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the LORD to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel.

So now you say satan makes atonement for the sins of God's people by being alive...in the desert.

But not as a sin offering - it is alive and pollutes anyone who touches it.

Do you want to elaborate on that. How does satan make atonement for the sins of the people which have been removed from the sanctuary, in your view, by being in the bottomless pit (not a desert) for 1k years? How does that make atonement?

But, per Ellen White, satan bears the sins not just while in the bottomless pit. But he still bears them when he comes out. Per Ellen White hebears them in suffering and death. So she doesn't agree with your statement here. And she doesn't agree with the type that the goat is sent alive into the wilderness.

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!”
Which brings us to:

And she is quite specific here in Early Writings. She has said a number of times he bears the sins of God's people. But here she spells out categories.

-his own sin
-ruin of souls he has caused (a sub-set of his own sins)
- sins of the redeemed host.

And by her interpretation she can't say any other, because the sins are taken out of the sanctuary, and placed on him, which would be all the sins of God's people per the Adventist view, not just satan's part in temptation.

So your view

a. doesn't explain how satan going to the bottomless pit for 1k years makes atonement for the sins of God's pepole. And the Scriptures say that the goat for azazel does make atonement.

b. doesn't agree with Ellen White's view.

Which brings us to this:

tall73 said: ↑

some see the goat as a means of conveyance of sin out of the camp, so not representing a "who" at all, other than a goat.

hmm a "goat symbol" that represents itself... "a goat"?? an actual goat????

I mentioned multiple views that are held on the point, spelling out three based on different theories of etymology of the word azazel. The scapegoat is not explained by direct reference in the NT. But yes, one of those views is that the goat is not representing either Christ or satan. And the context that I mentioned this in was responding to the discussion that @Leaf473 was having with LGW, in which Leaf473 clearly stated that it is not an either or between Christ or satan, and that if it is not satan, it may not be representing Christ either.

But I think you missed the larger point of that view.

The goat does not point to either Christ or Satan in that view. In that view the high priest (now after the heavenly ministration, so representing Christ), confesses all the sins of the people (already atoned for), on the goat. The goat is sent alive out of the camp. In this view the goat is a means of illustrating the sins being sent out of the camp, away from the dwelling place of God. The sins are both atoned for by blood to satisfy the law, and they are removed. Or as I noted, some see it as removing effects of sin as well, such as the old earth, old heavens, the curse of the law on the earth, sorrow, pain, etc. is removed from God's kingdom.

So you point out the high priest kills the Goat for the Lord, but Jesus is not thereby pictured as killing Himself, and I consented to your Scripture evidence regarding Jesus not being a priest before going to Heaven. But then we have a person, the high priest, who at times represents Jesus, but at times does not.

And in the same way, in this view, we have a goat that does not point to Jesus, but does point to the removal of sin. It is the means of portraying its conveyance away from the dwelling of God's people.

Lev 16:22 And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.

The high priest here would still represent Jesus, as it is after His heavenly ministry, and He is sending sin away, never again to be seen in the dwelling place of His people. And this would explain why the goat makes the man unclean, because it represents sin.

This is actually more in line with the text. It explains how God removes sin completely from the place of His people. It explains how the high priest makes atonement with the live goat, removing sin entirely from the camp, analogous to removing sin entirely from the universe, and everything associated with it.

It also relates to other biblical pictures of God removing sin far from us, or the dwelling place of God now being free from sin and its effects:

Psa 103:10 He hath not dealt with us after our sins; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities.
Psa 103:11 For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him.
Psa 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

Rev 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

Rev 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Now this ties in with the etymology actually listed first in the BDB that LGW kept posting:

Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Unabridged - H5799
H5799. Azazel; עֲזָאזֵל noun [masculine] entire removal (reduplicated intensive (Ges§ 30 n. Sta§ 124 a), abstract, √ [עזל] = Arabic remove, see BährSymb.

This indicates that one possibility for the meaning of the word is an intensive of:

(Strongs)
אָזַל
'âzal
aw-zal'
A primitive root; to go away, hence to disappear

Hence the possible rendering of "total removal". And that is what this view sees. Total removal of sins.

Moreover, this view addresses another point in the text that you have failed to address, but which, contrary to your assertion that I didn't discuss Scripture in this thread, was already presented.

The goat is not stated to BE "azazel" but is FOR "azazel". So when LGW contends that azazel is a name for a fallen angel, referring to Enoch, etc. he is overlooking that the goat is for azazel, not azazel itself. Even those scholars who hold it being a proper name for a demonic entity generally see that demonic entity living in the desert, and the goat for azazel is sent to it. So even in that scenario, sin would be sent out of the camp, where fallen angels, satan, the wicked, etc. are at, to be disposed of with them.

Lev 16:8 And Aaron shall cast lots over the two goats, one lot for the LORD and the other lot for Azazel.

The goat is for azazel, into the wilderness.

Lev 16:10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for azazel into the wilderness.

In this view the goat is for total removal, into the wilderness. The sins are sent out of the camp, the dwelling of God's people.

The goat then illustrates another aspect of the work of Christ as high priest making atonement, by sending sin out of the camp.

But if you take your view, that the goat represents satan, then you still have not explained how:

a. satan can be represented by an unblemished animal.

b. how a sinner can take on others sins.

c. how satan sitting in the bottomless pit for 1k years makes atonement.

d. why the service shows God choosing between the two goats, who you say represent Christ and Satan, as though they were interchangeable, and God at some point had to decide which one would shed His blood for our sins , and which would be sent away alive.

Lev 16:7 Then he shall take the two goats and set them before the LORD at the entrance of the tent of meeting.
Lev 16:8 And Aaron shall cast lots over the two goats, one lot for the LORD and the other lot for Azazel.

And because of Ellen White's statement you have an even more complicated problem, because she says that satan doesn't make atonement by being alive, but that he pays the price by suffering and dying. But it was Jesus who suffered and died for sins.

So your view doesn't fit the type. Ellen White's view CERTAINLY doesn't fit the type, and is an insult to the true atonement of Christ.

 

[Leaf473]

You realize of course - you are actually asking what the Bible teaches about the gift of prophecy... when it comes to Adventists.

Right, what the Adventists believe the Bible teaches about the gift of prophecy.

The 28 fundamental beliefs speak of White's writings as speaking with prophetic authority. Is that the same as having the gift of prophecy?

 

[tall73]

Thanks for the Post.

I think it's when I read statements either by White or anyone here on this thread who is generally in favor of SDA doctrines talk about Satan paying the final penalty for our sins or in some way paying a price for our sins that I see the implication that he is suffering or dying on behalf of our sins.

But if what is really meant is that
"...whatever suffering {or death?} he experiences is not done on anyone else's behalf..."
then that changes things.

If that's the case, then I would just say that White's wording and similar kinds of phrases are maybe not the best way to word it.

Did White use an editor? Or are we basically reading pretty much what came out of her pen the first time?

You need more than an editor to fix this statement:

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!”

She distinguishes categories. She says he pays for

-his own sins
-ruin of suls which he caused (part of his sins, temptation, etc.)
AND
-the sins of the redeemed.

This is in line with her other statements about the sins of God's people. It is also in line with her understanding of the type that the sins of God's people are taken out of the sanctuary and placed on the goat for azazel. And it is in line with her statement to

pray much that their sins may be confessed upon the head of the scapegoat and borne away into the land of forgetfulness.

It is the sins of God's people that she sees him paying for:

He sees that the day of atonement has a bearing on his life; that the scapegoat chosen to bear the sins of the people represents himself; that he must bear the sins of all who come to Jesus; and that those who continue in transgression must bear their own sins.

It was seen, also, that while the sin offering pointed to Christ as a sacrifice, and the high priest represented Christ as a mediator, the scapegoat typified Satan, the author of sin, upon whom the sins of the truly penitent will finally be placed. When the high priest, by virtue of the blood of the sin offering, removed the sins from the sanctuary, he placed them upon the scapegoat. When Christ, by virtue of His own blood, removes the sins of His people from the heavenly sanctuary at the close of His ministration, He will place them upon Satan, who, in the execution of the judgment, must bear the final penalty.