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

[tall73]

Isaac laid down his life - but did not offer to kill himself.

Jesus is both high priest and lamb of God - but as Hebrews 8 points out - Jesus on Earth "is not a priest at all".

I accept that correction. That is what the text says.

He did not slay himself as high priest. Rather he is the lamb in that picture - . He is the High priest when it comes to sprinkling the blood and mediating,

He does not offering himself by killing himself - he offers himself up on the altar "as the sacrifice".

Bob, you do realize you just admitted that Jesus' "offering" of Himself as High Priest can only be the heavenly administration, and not the death on the cross.

Thank you for settling that long-running issue.


Heb 7:26 For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.
Heb 7:27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.

Heb 10:12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,
Heb 10:13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.
Heb 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.


This must then be talking about the blood ministration, as I indicated. The sin offerings were killed by the person themselves, but ministered by the priest.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, you do realize you just admitted that Jesus' "offering" of Himself as High Priest can only be the heavenly administration, and not the death on the cross.

When I posted this - I thought you might go there

He did not slay himself as high priest. Rather he is the lamb in that picture - . He is the High priest when it comes to sprinkling the blood and mediating,

He does not offering himself by killing himself - he offers himself up on the altar "as the sacrifice".​

Which is why I said "he offer himself" as "THE SACRIFICE" on the altar of burnt offering - it is the willing sacrifice .. it is not him killing someone. It is him as a willing sacrifice.

As your own reference to Heb 7 shows.

27 who has no daily need, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because He did this once for all time when He offered up Himself


As noted in our previous discussion "offered up in smoke" is the offering on the altar of burnt offering. once for all. He does this as the lamb of God - but not as a priest killing an animal or even killing himself. It is still He who is doing it on the cross - but He does it as "the sacrifice" itself.

 

[tall73]

And I show how this is her own reference to the Lev 16 actions related to the scapegoat that is NOT a sin offering (stated repeatedly) and that she says he pays for HIS guilt in tempting them to that sin.

Bob, there is something you are not explaining. We all see you are not explaining it. So perhaps you should get to explaining it.

I am going to "micro quote" Ellen White as LGW likes to say, just so you can see the part you are not addressing:


removes the sins of His people from the heavenly sanctuary at the close of His ministration, He will place them upon Satan

Bob, how can satan bear the sins of God's people, when it is not his sin? And why do you keep talking about him paying for his sin when she says he will bear the sins of God's people?

 

[pasifika]

Yes, I read your post there. Now are you saying that Satan does pay the final penalty for our sin? Or is it something more like he pays the final penalty for tempting us to sin?

God gave Ellen White a number of messages for the church -- many volumes written on that as Tall73 points out with that picture he posts. Still the denomination has 28 statements of belief not thousands, in the same way that every sentence in the NT is not "another statement of belief" for any Christian denomination on planet Earth. Which is not a claim that all of the NT is a contradiction to those statements of belief. So this is not the part that is "new".

As for non-SDAs accepting Ellen White as a prophet - I don't think that happens very much. Usually they study SDA doctrine from the Bible - and if they accept then only later would they read the messages given to Ellen White to see if she was a prophet.

Hey Bob, how did you know God gave EG White a message for the church...Is that from her own admission or from bible?

 

[BobRyan]

White is considered always reliable, then?

For Adventists generally speaking the messages God gave Ellen White are considered reliable - but first the doctrines of the Adventist church are tested by them to see if those are in harmony with the Bible.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, how can satan bear the sins of God's people, when it is not his sin?

How is his sin in tempting people to do those sins - not his sin?
how is his guilt in tempting people not of his kingdom to sin - not a greater sin debt owed than simply tempting the subjects of his own kingdom to sin?

And are you not once again trying to equate the work of the sin offering in Lev 16 - with something that is not a sin offering at all?

The sanctuary model is telling in symbols what happens in reality in heaven. The sanctuary service is about "Answering all the questions" related to the gospel plan of salvation. Getting everyone to see the full details, the answers to all the questions.

Just as Jesus is claiming his blood for our sins in the sanctuary as high priest instead of "sprinkling the symbol of blood on objects" so also it is measuring out the full extent of Satan's own guilt incurred by him for tempting those not of his kingdom that it symbolized there. The "symbol" makes the point that this debt is not at all a substitutionary atoning work but rather is no sin offering at all.. it merely shows the final disposition for the guilt of that sin - as Spurgeon himself noted.

C.H.Spurgeon http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0095.htm
The first goat was a type of the atonement; the second is the type of the effect of the atonement. The second goat went away, after the first was slaughtered, carrying the sins of the people on its head, and so it sets froth, as a scapegoat, how our sins are carried away into the depth of the wilderness.... The rabbis tell us that this goat was taken by a man into the wilderness and here tumbled down a high rock to die; but, as an excellent commentator says, if the man did push it down the rock he more than God ever told him to do. God told him to take a goat and let it go: as to what became of it neither you nor I know anything; that is purposely left. ...

The most correct account seems to be that of one Rabbi Jarchi, who says that they generally took the goat twelve miles out of Jerusalem, and at each mile there was a booth provided where the man who took it might refresh himself till he came to the tenth mile, when there was no more rest for him till he had seen the goat go. When he had come to the last mile he stood and looked at the goat till it was gone, and he could see it no more. Then the people's sins were all gone too. Now, what a fine type that is if you do not enquire any further! But if you will get meddling where God intended you to be in ignorance, you will get nothing by it. This scapegoat was not designed to show us the victim or the sacrifice, but simply what became of the sins.

Satan's guilt and added debt owed for tempting those not of his kingdom could not be known until the day of Atonement sanctuary work was done.

 

[Leaf473]

There is an easy answer posted

Yes and thank you for that post.

Agreed - I am not speaking for someone else - I am speaking to the point you raised. If your real intent has nothing to do with that point - but simply working LGW into a corner or something.. well I am not part of that.

No I'm not interested in backing LGW into a corner. (Well actually, my fleshly nature is. But I try to suppress that.)

I asked partly because I'm always interested in learning what different groups think. I wanted to know if this represented standard SDA thinking.

And partly because if it's not SDA theology, it's off topic for this section of CF imo.

He pays for his own debt incurred by tempting us to do that sin.

So he pays the penalty for tempting us. But either we or Jesus pay the penalty for the actual sins we do.

Sounds reasonable.

 

[tall73]

When I posted this - I thought you might go there

He did not slay himself as high priest. Rather he is the lamb in that picture - . He is the High priest when it comes to sprinkling the blood and mediating,

He does not offering himself by killing himself - he offers himself up on the altar "as the sacrifice".​

Which is why I said "he offer himself" as "THE SACRIFICE" on the altar of burnt offering - it is the willing sacrifice .. it is not him killing someone. It is him as a willing sacrifice.

As your own reference to Heb 7 shows.

27 who has no daily need, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because He did this once for all time when He offered up Himself

Bob.....if He is offering as High Priest, and you said He is not High Priest when He was on earth, but only when He went to heaven, then it cannot be referring to what you claim here. The sacrifice was killed at the entrance to the tent of meeting by the person.

Then the blood was applied by the priest to the altar. But you just said He cannot be a priest while on earth.

He offered up Himself when He went into heaven. He appeared before God the completed sacrifice:

Heb 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)
Heb 9:12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

He appeared before God. He did it in heaven. He did it by means of His own blood. He did it AS HIGH PRIEST. And thus He secured eternal redemption.

As noted in our previous discussion "offered up in smoke" is the offering on the altar of burnt offering. once for all. He does this as the lamb of God - but not as a priest killing an animal or even killing himself.

Bob, in chapter 7 it is as high priest that He offers it. And you just said He has to be in heaven to be a priest. So no, that doesn't work. And you were right to think I would bring it up.

I accepted the correction of Scripture when you presented it. You should do the same:

Heb 7:26 For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.
Heb 7:27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.

The sin offering during the year was killed by the person. The priest ministered the blood. Here Jesus is seen as also offering Himself, as high priest, and you just said that can only happen in heaven.

 

[Leaf473]

For Adventists generally speaking the messages God gave Ellen White are considered reliable - but first the doctrines of the Adventist church are tested by them to see if those are in harmony with the Bible.

In harmony with the bible? Does that mean does not conflict with but may expand on the Bible?

Is the SDA test of a prophet whether they write things that are in harmony with the Bible?

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, I read your post there. Now are you saying that Satan does pay the final penalty for our sin? Or is it something more like he pays the final penalty for tempting us to sin?

"The final penalty" as in

• The sinner pays for his own debt of sin
• Those who in this life conspired to get the sinner to commit the sin - pay their penalty in that act.
• Satan the final and ultimate instigator pays for his part

 

[BobRyan]

Bob.....if He is offering as High Priest, and you said He is not High Priest when He was on earth,

My claim is "he offered himself up" on the cross - not as high priest - but as the lamb, as the sacrifice.

Since it is in this case "The same person" who is High Priest and who is the sacrifice - you could say it as you wish - but I don't think your "killed himself" is in scripture or in Ellen White's writing or in any SDA doctrinal statement.

 

[BobRyan]

In harmony with the bible? Does that mean does not conflict with but may expand on the Bible?

Is the SDA test of a prophet whether they write things that are in harmony with the Bible?

Indeed for example a great "sola scriptura testing" command is found in Isaiah 8:20
"20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

That was not a statement saying that Isaiah 8:21 cannot possibly be of God since it does not occur before Isaiah 8:20. Nor does it say every Bible text after Isaiah 8:20 provides no more information, no more detail than all of scripture up to Isaiah 8:20

 

[tall73]

How is his sin in tempting people to do those sins - not his sin?
how is his guilt in tempting people not of his kingdom to sin - not a greater sin debt owed than simply tempting the subjects of his own kingdom to sin?

And are you not once again trying to equate the work of the sin offering in Lev 16 - with something that is not a sin offering at all?

Bob, it is not his sin because you did it! His sin is temptation. You did the sin.

She says the sins of God's people were placed on Him.

Now you say I am trying to equate it. I didn't come up with Ellen White's sick statement. And Leviticus said nothing about placing the sins of God's people on satan. I am saying her statement should be condemned. You cannot place sins of other people on satan. He bears his own sins. So Ellen White's followers have to answer for Ellen White's non-sensical and horrible statement. Or they could just renounce it.

Nor have you answered what I asked you. Are Jesus and satan interchangeable? Was God choosing between Jesus and satan to die for sins and to have sins place on them alive?

Of course not! Jesus and satan are in no ways comparable. Jesus is the sinless Son of God and satan is a sinful being. satan never could be chosen. And only Jesus died for sins. And only Jesus removes sin from the camp.

The sanctuary model is telling in symbols what happens in reality in heaven. The sanctuary service is about "Answering all the questions" related to the gospel plan of salvation. Getting everyone to see the full details, the answers to all the questions.

And in no Bible detail are your sins placed on satan. He bears his own sins. Jesus already took on yours and died for them.

Just as Jesus is claiming his blood for our sins in the sanctuary as high priest instead of "sprinkling the symbol of blood on objects" so also it is measuring out the full extent of Satan's own guilt incurred by him for tempting those not of his kingdom that it symbolized there.

Bob, did you just pass over your own guilt again? Someone who was not of his kingdom sinned because they chose to. Not only that, they spurned Christ's grace by doing so! And they spurned the power of His Spirit to overcome sin. And they grieved the Spirit of God within them. And Christ, being all merciful still saves them when they confess.

But you have their sin, the sins of God's people--literally stated by Ellen White, not the sins of satan--being placed on satan.

And it makes no sense because Jesus already died for your sins.

The "symbol" makes the point that this debt is not at all a substitutionary atoning work but rather is no sin offering at all.. it merely shows the final disposition for the guilt of that sin - as Spurgeon himself noted.

The disposition of guilt was yours. Then it went to Jesus. Then He DIED For it and paid your price.

Satan's guilt and added debt owed for tempting those not of his kingdom could not be known until the day of Atonement sanctuary work was done.

Bob, satan's sin is his own sin, including temptation. She says the sins of God's people is placed on him--not his own sin.

 

[BobRyan]

Do you really think God was choosing between Jesus and satan to be the sin offering that cleanses by blood? .

No... did you see me say such a thing?

I said that just as Jesus is claiming his blood in behalf of sinners as our Mediator and high priest instead of "Sprinkling blood on objects" in heaven - and yet that symbol in the OT is pointing to the very real work of Christ in that daily service claiming his blood on the sinner's behalf, so the scapegoat as a symbol represents the wicked paying for the full degree of their own debt of sin.

 

[tall73]

Is the SDA test of a prophet whether they write things that are in harmony with the Bible?

Here is another statement of EGW on the scapegoat. Note here they are to pray their sins would be confessed upon the head of the scape goat.

And there she sees them borne away to the land of forgetfulness.

Lt 8, 1850

Much love to your dear father and to your sisters and brother. Tell them to be faithful to serve God. I have often prayed for them. Tell them to pray much that their sins may be confessed upon the head of the scape goat and borne away into the land of forgetfulness.

Lt 8, 1850

 

[tall73]

A vision the Lord gave me October 23, 1850, at the house of Bro. Nichols in Dorchester, Mass. I saw that we must redouble our efforts now in this gathering time. I saw it was a shame for us to refer to the scattering time for examples to govern us now in the gathering time, for if God does no more for us now than He did then, we never shall be gathered. In the scattering Israel were torn and smitten, but now God will heal and bind them up. 1LtMs, Ms 15, 1850, par. 1

I saw that God had stretched out His hand the second time to recover the remnant of His people. They are those who have been covered up beneath the rubbish since 1844. I saw that efforts to spread the truth should now be made, such as were put forth in 1843 and ’44. In the scattering efforts made to spread the truth had but little effect—accomplished little or nothing—but now in the gathering time when God has set His hand to gather His people, efforts to spread the truth will have their designed effect, and all should be zealous and united in the work. 1LtMs, Ms 15, 1850, par. 2

I saw that a paper was needed and that all should be interested in it. I saw that the burden of the paper was laid on James, and that it is as important to publish the truth as to preach it. I saw that James should not be discouraged if all did not feel the interest in the paper that he did. I saw that Bro. Bates had not the interest in the paper that he should have, and that his lack of interest had discouraged James. I saw that James should set his face as a flint, and go forward. I saw the flock looking for the paper, and were ready like hungry children to eat the truth published in it. 1LtMs, Ms 15, 1850, par. 3

I saw that the truth should be made plain on tables, that the earth and the fullness thereof is the Lord’s, and that necessary means should not be spared to make it plain. I saw that the angels’ messages made plain, would have effect. I saw that the old chart was directed by the Lord, and that not a peg of it should be altered without inspiration. I saw that the figures on the chart were as God wanted them, and that His hand was over and hid a mistake in some of the figures so that none could see it until His hand was removed. 1LtMs, Ms 15, 1850, par. 4

I saw that the two-horned beast had a dragon mouth, and that his power was in his head, and that the decree would go out of his mouth. Then I saw the mother of harlots, that the mother was not the daughters, but separate and distinct from them. She has had her day, and it is past, and her daughters, Protestant sects, were next to come on the stage and act out the same mind that the mother had when she persecuted the saints. I saw that as the mother has been declining in power the daughters have been growing, and soon they will exercise the power once manifested by the mother. 1LtMs, Ms 15, 1850, par. 5

I saw that the nominal churches and nominal Adventists, like Judas, would betray us to the Catholics, to obtain their influence to come against the saints. The saints will be an obscure people, but little known to the Catholics, but the church and nominal Adventists will know of our faith and customs, and will betray the saints and report them to the Catholics, as those who disregard the institution of the pope, that is they keep the Sabbath and disregard Sunday. 1LtMs, Ms 15, 1850, par. 6

Then the Catholics bid the Protestants to go forward and issue a decree that all who will not observe the first day of the week instead of the seventh shall be slain, and the Catholics, whose numbers are large, will stand by the Protestants. The Catholics will give their power to the image of the beast and then Protestants will work as their mother worked before them to destroy the saints. But before their decrees bring forth or bear fruit, the saints will be delivered by the voice of God. 1LtMs, Ms 15, 1850, par. 7

Then I saw that Jesus’ work in the sanctuary was almost finished, almost finished, and after His work there is finished He will come to the door of the tabernacle, or door of the first apartment, and confess the sins of Israel upon the head of the scape goat. Then He will put on the garments of vengeance. Then the plagues come upon the wicked, and they do not come until Jesus puts on the garments of vengeance and takes His seat upon the great white cloud. Then while the plagues are falling the scape goat is being led away. He makes a mighty struggle to escape, but he is held fast by the hand that bears him away. If he should effect his escape Israel would be destroyed (or slain). I saw that it would take time to bear him away into the land of forgetfulness after the sins were put upon his head. 1LtMs, Ms 15, 1850, par. 8

Jesus clothes Himself with the garments of vengeance and takes His place upon the great white cloud before the plagues are poured out. The great white cloud, I saw, was not in the holy place but entirely separate from the holy and most holy, entirely separate from the sanctuary. 1LtMs, Ms 15, 1850, par. 9

As Jesus passed through the holy place or first apartment, to the door to confess the sins of Israel on the scape goat, an angel said, This apartment is called the sanctuary. Then the angel repeated these words and said this is the time spoken of, and he saw that there was no man and wondered that there was no intercessor; we had no mediator between God and man and the plagues could be withheld no longer, for Jesus had ceased to plead for Israel, and they were covered with the covering of Almighty God and lived in His sight, and those who were not covered felt the plagues, for they had nothing to shelter them. 1LtMs, Ms 15, 1850, par. 10

I saw that there was a cherub sitting on either end of the mercy seat with their wings spread over the ark. There also stood two angels, one by either end of the ark, with their wings spread out on high and touching each other, while their other wings reached to each side of the apartment. I saw that the wings of the angels did not reach above the Father, for that would bring Him too low. I saw that the Father was in the midst above the cherubims, and His glory is shed down upon the ark, and the train of His glory fills the temple. 1LtMs, Ms 15, 1850, par. 11

Then I saw the daily, that the Lord gave the correct view of it to those who gave the first angel’s message. When union existed before 1844, nearly all were united on the correct view of the daily, but since, in the confusion other views have been embraced and darkness has followed. I saw that God had not made a test of time since 1844, and that time never again will be a test. 1LtMs, Ms 15, 1850, par. 12

Then I had a view of Sister Minor and others with her, that their visions were not true, that God had not spoken by them. I saw that if we are to go to Jerusalem, then the truth should not be made plain upon tables, for our minds should be turned towards Jerusalem and our means should be reserved to get the saints to Jerusalem. I saw that the faults and errors of Sister Minor and those with her in past time had not been confessed. This is the reason why they have been left to run into great errors. I saw that Bro. Bates must be careful and be willing to receive light that comes in other ways besides through visions. I saw that he was too slow to receive light from his brethren. 1LtMs, Ms 15, 1850, par. 13

 

[tall73]

tall73 said: ↑

Do you really think God was choosing between Jesus and satan to be the sin offering that cleanses by blood? .

No... did you see me say such a thing?

How can you be saying anything else, since the type shows two clean, sacrificial, unblemished animals, and the lot indicates the will of the Lord as to which will be the one killed for its blood to go into the sanctuary, and the other represents the one used to send sin out of the camp, to make atonement?


Lev 16:5 And he shall take from the congregation of the people of Israel two male goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering.
Lev 16:6 “Aaron shall offer the bull as a sin offering for himself and shall make atonement for himself and for his house.
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.

I said that just as Jesus is claiming his blood in behalf of sinners as our Mediator and high priest instead of "Sprinkling blood on objects" in heaven - and yet that symbol in the OT is pointing to the very real work of Christ in that daily service claiming his blood on the sinner's behalf, so the scapegoat as a symbol represents the wicked paying for the full degree of their own debt of sin.

You just changed it again. Ellen White said the scapegoat is satan, and that the sins of God's people are placed on him. She did not say that the scapegoat represents the wicked paying for the full degree of THEIR (plural) debt of sin.

Why do you keep saying you agree with Ellen White, then dodging what she said?

She says over and over that the sins of God's people are placed on satan.

 

[tall73]

• Satan the final and ultimate instigator pays for his part

Yet another quote of Ellen White from the Great Controversy:

The Great Controversy

In like manner, when the work of atonement in the heavenly sanctuary has been completed, then in the presence of God and heavenly angels and the hosts of the redeemed the sins of God's people will be placed upon Satan; he will be declared guilty of all the evil which he has caused them to commit. And as the scapegoat was sent away into a land not inhabited, so Satan will be banished to the desolate earth, an uninhabited and dreary wilderness.

Bob, she has him paying for more than his part. She has him taking on the sins of God's people, and says he caused them all.

Bob, did satan make you do it? You had no choice? Or did you sin?

 

[tall73]

My claim is "he offered himself up" on the cross - not as high priest - but as the lamb, as the sacrifice.

Since it is in this case "The same person" who is High Priest and who is the sacrifice - you could say it as you wish - but I don't think your "killed himself" is in scripture or in Ellen White's writing or in any SDA doctrinal statement.

Now Bob, I admitted my error, and agreed He was only high priest in heaven. But then I applied the statement and you then dodged it rather than being corrected by Scripture.

Jesus offered as High Priest in Hebrews 7.

And He appeared as High Priest and enteres by means of His own blood obtaining eternal redemption in Hebrews 9.

You were quite correct. He is High Priest in heaven, which means that all the offerings by the High Priest that are ascribed to Him are in heaven.

 

[tall73]

• Satan the final and ultimate instigator pays for his part

This time from Patriarchs and Prophets:

She says that his part is all the sins taken from the sanctuary Bob, and in fact all the sins that caused the death of the Son of God. So she does have him bearing your sins Bob. Even though Jesus already bore them and paid the price, she has satan paying the price of your sin.

Since Satan is the originator of sin, the direct instigator of all the sins that caused the death of the Son of God, justice demands that Satan shall suffer the final punishment. Christ's work for the redemption of men and the purification of the universe from sin will be closed by the removal of sin from the heavenly sanctuary and the placing of these sins upon Satan, who will bear the final penalty. So in the typical service, the yearly round of ministration closed with the purification of the sanctuary, and the confessing of the sins on the head of the scapegoat.