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

[tall73]

tall73 said: ↑

I wanted you to clarify what she said about the one sentence.

tall73 inquired about:

they offer up their useless prayers to the apartment which Jesus has left

I did answer your earlier question in regards to what I thought that EGW statement means by showing what it means through the scriptures.

You never explained this part. I am particularly keen to hear your view of it, so you can't say I twisted it:

they offer up their useless prayers to the apartment which Jesus has left

If I give my view you say I am twisting. If I ask your view on a particular part you won't say. Why is that?

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 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.

I am sorry, but I won't say what I agree or do not agree with until you have explained it all. You always say I twist things. I want you to explain it all since you never twist things. That way you can't accuse me of twisting. Please explain this part:

they offer up their useless prayers to the apartment which Jesus has left

 

[Leaf473]

It refers to Clorinda Minor. She had views that most in the movement at that time did not regarding Palestine having some role in future prophecy. She wound up acting on that by going as an unofficial missionary to the region.

That is why traveling to Jerusalem is mentioned (negatively) by Ellen White in the letter.

You could see this as a discernment of spirits type of gift in exercise.

Adventists tend to view several tests of a prophet in Scripture. Here is an article on the subject:

EllenWhite.Org Website - The Tests of a Prophet


Minor, Clorinda Strong (1809–1855)

Thanks for the references!

 

[tall73]

Agreed.

Your response here...

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.

Yes, they are God's words, not yours. And I already agreed with God's words--but not yours.

You are accountable for tempting. You are accountable if you lead people astray.

Ezekiel was accountable if he did not fulfill his duty and the person died. Notice he says the person's blood will be required of him.

This is the same thing stated about someone who claimed to kill someone without cause.

2Sa 4:11 How much more, when wicked men have killed a righteous man in his own house on his bed, shall I not now require his blood at your hand and destroy you from the earth?”

Killing a person is a sin, and requires judgment.

But there are also sins of omission. If God tells you to warn and you do not, that is a sin. But it is not the sin of another person. It is the sin of letting that person die when you were supposed to save them.

The person that Ezekiel didn't rebuke died for his own sin, was taken away in his iniquity:

Eze 33:6 But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, so that the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any one of them, that person is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at the watchman's hand.

Ezekiel would be held responsible for the sin of Ezekiel in not giving the warning, and therefore allowing the man to die.

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.

No, it is correct because Scripture said it is correct, that not every sin you do is the devil's doing. The devil didn't always make you do it. You sin on your own, tempted by your own evil desires. You are a sinner. You have your own sin that is not satan's sin:

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

As a sinner, satan bears his own sin, and it is plentiful, for all the times he tempted, all of his own rebellion etc.

But what Ellen White says is that he pays for the sins of God's people as well. And that is not the case. As a sinner, he cannot pay for other people's sins. But that is what she says.


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.

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.

You say they are not their sins. Ellen White says otherwise, again and again:

that he must bear the sins of all who come to Jesus;

upon whom the sins of the truly penitent will finally be placed

pray much that their sins may be confessed upon the head of the scapegoat

Ellen White says it is their sins, the sins of all who come to Jesus, the sins of the truly penitent, etc. that are placed on him. She says he must pay the price for them. So you don't agree with Ellen White here.

Now, if you wish to agree with Scripture, by all means, please do so! Jesus already paid the price for them. satan will by no means do so, and could never do so as a sinner.

But Ellen White says again and again that satan must bear the sins of God's people. That is a sick statement. Jesus bore the sins of God's people.

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.

I think you are missing:

a. the goat is FOR azazel. It is sent for azazel. You are treating it as though azazel is the goat. But that is not what is stated in the text.

b. satan can never take on other people's sins, he has his own.

c. The goat for removal makes atonement by removing the atoned for sins from the camp. God compeletely removes sin from the dwelling of His people.

e. The Lord's goat and the goat for removal both picture works of Christ. Otherwise you are asserting that God chooses (the purpose of lots) between Christ and satan who will shed blood for God's people, and who will be sent away alive.

f. You have not at all explained how satan being sent away alive into the abyss (not the wilderness) makes atonement. And you have to deal with the confusing statement of Ellen White who makes him pay the price not in the abyss, but by his death, which she specifically says is paying the penalty for the sins of God's people. And that is an insult to the atonement of Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

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

Prophecy is one of the NT gifts of the Spirit - yet not all prophesy

1 Cor 12:

7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: 8 for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.
29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But earnestly desire the best gifts.​

Eph 4:

11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 untill we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ—​

1. God speaks to prophets in dreams and visions or face-to-face -- supernatural communication.

Numbers 12

6 He said,“Now hear My words:
If there is a prophet among you,
I, the Lord, will make Myself known to him in a vision.
I will speak with him in a dream.
7 It is not this way for My servant Moses;
He is faithful in all My household;
8 With him I speak mouth to mouth,​

2. Test them by fruits of obedience - (and fruit of the Spirit Gal 5) -- Matt 7

Matt 7

15 “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So then, you will know them by their fruits.
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; leave Me, you who practice lawlessness.’
24 “Therefore, everyone who hears these words of Mine, and acts on them, will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall,​

3. There message must not contradict scripture - Is 8:20

Isaiah 8

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.​

1 John 4:2 Must teach the literal incarnation of Christ

1 Cor 14:31-32 - in harmony with the teaching of all approved prophets - Bible prophets​

4. They must not lead the people away from God. Deut 13
Deut 13:13 Call us to Worship God alone

1 If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you to find out if you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.​

5. They must teach that in all of time there has only been one Gospel Gal 1:6-9

6. Jer 18:7-10 - their messages from God may be conditional.

Jer 18

7 At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; 8 if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. 9 Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; 10 if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it
(As in the case of Jonah and as in Moses' prediction that they were all going to Canaan)​

7. Their predictions must be accurate
Deut 18:21-22

21 You may say in your heart, ‘How will we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?’ 22 When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.
​

8. Prophets speak with prophetic authority (obviously) -

2 Peter 1:20-21

20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.​

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

yes because of what prophecy is "by definition" - a message from God.

God commands us to listen to His prophets.

2 Chron 20:20
O Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, put your trust in the Lord your God and you will be established. Put your trust in His prophets and succeed​

Amos 3:7 “For the Lord God does nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets.​

1 Cor 14:1
Pursue love, yet earnestly desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. 2 For the one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people, but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries 3 But the one who prophesies speaks to people for edification, exhortation, and consolation… 26 What is the outcome then, brothers and sisters? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. All things are to be done for edification…39 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, earnestly desire to prophesy,​

God is in explicit control of Prophetic utterance in the case of true/real prophets

1 Cor 14

29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. 30 But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; 33 for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
​

God warns against rejecting His prophets:

1 Thess 5: 19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not despise prophecies. 21 Test all things; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil.

Matt 23:

34 “Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will flog in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, 35 so that upon you will fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth

Acts 7: 51 “You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did. 52 Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? They killed those who had previously announced the coming of the Righteous One, and you have now become betrayers and murderers of Him; 53 you who received the Law as ordained by angels, and yet did not keep it.”

Matt 23:29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs for the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, 30 and you say, ‘If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. 33 You snakes, you offspring of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?

Prov 29: 18 Where there is no revelation, the people (perish) cast off restraint; But happy is he who keeps the law.​

 

[BobRyan]

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.

Tall73 posts that quite a lot - but I don't know that as an Ex-SDA I would put that in the category of "in favor of SDA doctrines".

Details matter.

We both agree that Adventists teach that Christ paid the full atoning sacrifice on the cross for all sins of all mankind and that no amount of suffering by the wicked - can go back in time and delete/downsize Christ's work.

Notice that in Lev 16:15 the "sin offering" is slain first - without any reference at all to the "scapegoat deleting something from the sin offering" - though Tall and some others seem to insert that idea depending on how much "suffering" is assigned in the case of the scapegoat.

This is impossible to ignore.

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.

Again -

Tall73 and I have both agreee that Adventists teach that Christ paid the full atoning sacrifice on the cross for all sins of all mankind . (And that includes Ellen White's teaching on that point) which means that no amount of suffering by the wicked - can go back in time and delete/downsize Christ's work. Christ's atoning sacrifice is already full and complete on the cross - nothing that happens future to that event goes back to downsize it even one iota.

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?

She had several editors - but even so it is clear that in her view -- just as the suffering of the wicked for their own sins did not affect in the least the fact that Christ had already paid the price in full for ALL sins of all mankind in all of time... so also any suffering that a wicked being like Satan does in his role as the SCAPEGOAT - cannot go back in time and delete something from the payment made by Christ.

In the bible there is the principle of "paying double for sins" as I posted before - we see it in the case of the wicked - and we see it in the case of the Scapegoat as Satan - a debt paid twice one being salvific (in the case of Christ) if accepted - and the other merely being "the suffering of a wicked being" which lessens no one's guilt.

 

[BobRyan]

Thanks for the references!

Getting into the weeds of who said what at a breakfast table 200 years ago or what unpublished letter was written to what friend 200 years ago - or was there ever an unknown unheard of person with some sort of doctrinal error in existence claiming to be a prophet and not passing the test is a fun game for some -- but probably not the best priority to start with. Better take a look at outright Bible doctrine and see how it compares to the various doctrinal statements of any given group one seeks to understand.

 

[BobRyan]

f. You have not at all explained how satan being sent away alive into the abyss (not the wilderness) makes atonement. And you have to deal with the confusing statement of Ellen White who makes him pay the price not in the abyss, but by his death, which she specifically says is paying the penalty for the sins of God's people.

The sin offering of Lev 16:15 is the only offering that provides substitutionary payment on behalf of the sinner who is relieved of that debt as a result of the suffering and death of the sin offering. Christ paid the full and complete atoning sacrifice for all sins of all mankind in all of time - at the cross.

In Lev 16 this happens BEFORE anything is done in the sanctuary for the Day of Atonement and BEFORE anything is done by way of assigning sin to the scapegoat. This means that nothing in the Sanctuary or regarding the Scapegoat can go back in time "and lessen" the payment made by the sin offering. Period.

The wicked have "Their part" in rejecting the gospel and choosing sin, Satan has his part as the great instigator of sin - and they suffer as a consequence. But that future suffering in Rev 20 after the millennium does not go back in time and "edit" the atoning sacrifice at the cross - no not even the much imagined "downsize of it" that some have proposed.

Your objection that the suffering added in the case of the scapegoat is, according to Lev 16, specific to the sins dealt with in the sanctuary - is interesting but changes nothing since no amount of suffering in the case of the wicked can go back in time and delete/downsize/ the accomplished event at the cross that occurs 3000 years before that lake of fire event.

And that is an insult to the atonement of Christ.

You have never explained how the suffering of the wicked "is an insult to the atonement of Christ" given that it happens 1000's of years after the complete atonement on the cross. Your insert has been more of an emotional whistle - but has never offered any actual logic for how in the world any amount of suffering by the wicked in the future can go back in time 2000 years ago and "insult" or "diminish" the already completed atonement on the cross.

Are you supposing that the seriousness of a baseless accusation can fully substitute for total lack of logic/argument fact on how such thing could even affect a past event at all - given that we already know that the wicked suffer for the very same debt Christ already paid in full at the cross.

I keep bringing this detail up - as you may have noticed. It would be good for your argument to find an answer to that sooner or later.

 

[BobRyan]

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

If you are trying to debate SDAs about some unpublished letter from Ellen White - you might need to find an SDA forum to do it.

This thread is not positioned as a "every obscure unpublished letter by Ellen White" thread. It is positioned as a "Sola scriptura" testing of SDA doctrine including the acceptance of the 1 Cor 12 gifts.

I have mentioned my view on the tactic of dragging non-SDAs all through the weeds over obscure unpublished statements. I also don't view non-SDAs as experts on the mountains-of-Ellen-White-books picture you like to post - so I don't drag them through that either.

I provide at the outside that as a non-SDA with a different set of doctrinal statements - there is little point in dragging-the-EGW debate out all over the thread - without first getting to the "easy part" - which is comparing doctrine to the Bible.

.

 

[Leaf473]

Your response here...

The problem is Leaf every part of that post is in disagreement with you and you have not addressed it so no you have not narrowed it does you have ignored it is probably the better word while making the occasional comment that does not address the posts detail in various sections of the post. So we might have to agree to disagree on this one dear friend. As posted earlier perhaps you can prayerfully study the topic for your self and we can talk about it latter.

It's up to you. Please let me know if you would like to stop.

I'm going through the posts in the order they appear on the forums so I won't know what your answer is until I reach that place. I'll continue responding to your previously written posts to me, but don't feel like you need to answer if you don't want to.

And peace be with you, my brother!

 

[Leaf473]

No, not at all. You simply either hand waived much of my post and simply disagreed without showing why you were in disagreement from the scriptures.

As already stated above, you simply either hand waived much of my post and simply disagreed without showing why you were in disagreement from the scriptures. If you agree that there is a strong link that "the scapegoat" (Azazel - "remove" "fallen angel") represents Satan then how can it represent Jesus?

I don't agree that there is a strong link between the scapegoat and Satan. I agree there is a link, but I think it's a weak link.

You were also shown from the scriptures in the types and the anti-types of the new covenant why it is impossible for "the scapegoat" (Azazel - "remove" "fallen angel") to represent Jesus and you have provided no scripture to show that "the scapegoat" (Azazel - "remove" "fallen angel") does not represent Satan and provided no scripture to show that the "the scapegoat" (Azazel - "remove" "fallen angel") represents Jesus.

That would be a great point if you had shown that the scapegoat must be Jesus or Satan.

Do you remember a while back I wrote words to this effect:
Please show why if the scapegoat isn't Jesus then it must be Satan.

Perhaps it will make more sense if I lay it out this way:
Proposition 1: Jesus is not the scapegoat
Proposition 2: the scapegoat must be either Jesus or Satan
Conclusion: the scapegoat is Satan.

I see that you have written many volumes on proposition 1 and I appreciate the time you spent on that. But I don't see that you have addressed proposition 2.

So the above conclusion isn't valid yet.

 

[Leaf473]

Once again an opinion your not able to support by scripture.

That's right! It's my opinion. If someone else has a different one, that's okay.

Remember the idea of shifting the burden of proof? It's not up to me to show that a strong link doesn't exist until a good case is made that it does.

Meanwhile you were provided
four different sources that were all in agreement. These included a (1). Scripture; (2). Jewish commentary on the Torah and meaning of the name Azazel; (3). the Apocrypha book of Enoch; (4). the BDB and English Lexicon and (5). The occult and Satanism depicting Satan as a goat. Honestly, it seem Satanists no more about the scriptures then many Christians sadly. All five independent sources are in agreement.
Source (1) scripture from the old and new covenant showing types and anti-types
Source (2) Jewish Torah commentary showing the meaning of the name of Azazel was;
Source (3) refers to Azazel from the Apocrypha as the leader of the fallen angels;
Source (4) Hebrew dictionary and Lexicon showing the meaning of the word translated "scapegoat" being Azazel meaning "removal" "fallen angel" with context to the Day of atonement (Leviticus 16).
Source (5) The symbol of Satan in Satanism and the occult is the goat!
If you agree that there is a strong link here then if your in disagreement you would need to prove otherwise and you haven't done this.

I previously addressed this. A quick summary:

I don't see the same link in the scriptures that you are seeing.

The BDB give the primary definition as "entire removal".

The other sources are probably built on each other. I wouldn't consider them reliable.

As a footnote, the BDB uses that same "ff" abbreviation I used in an earlier post.
Strong's Hebrew: 5799. עֲזָאזֵל (azazel) -- entire removal

 

[Leaf473]

As shown through the scriptures already, this is a misrepresentation of what has been shared here. All your doing is following a misrepresentation that someone else is saying which no one believes.

I was attempting to evaluate your statement here:

Satan is not paying the price for our sins accept when he is finally destroyed in the lake of fire when everyone who rejects the gift of Gods' sacrifice through blood atonement pays the price for their sins with the second death.

I believe the sentence:
"Satan is not paying the price for our sins except when he is finally destroyed."

Would mean, in part:
"Satan is paying the price for our sins when he is finally destroyed."

If it simply means Satan pays the price for being the tempter, that's fine. (There may be a philosophical issue with saying he is the originator of sin, but that's probably outside the scope of this thread.)

In Christian writing it's common to find things like:
"Jesus paid the price for our sins."

Because of that association, saying that Satan will pay for our sins would give a lot of people the wrong impression imo.

Take Care.

You too, my brother!

 

[LoveGodsWord]

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)?

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.

Your response here...

Yes, they are God's words, not yours

Yes thank you. My posts are indeed Gods' Word which I love and it is only God's Word we should believe and follow.

And I already agreed with God's words--but not yours.

If I have only posted Gods' Word, they are not my words but God's Word. Yet you do not agree therefore your statement that are your words and not Gods' Word is not true.

You are accountable for tempting. You are accountable if you lead people astray.

Not in context to Leviticus 16 and the cleansing of the Sanctuary and the removal of all sin from God's people to "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") which represents Satan.

Ezekiel was accountable if he did not fulfill his duty and the person died. Notice he says the person's blood will be required of him. This is the same thing stated about someone who claimed to kill someone without cause.

2Sa 4:11 How much more, when wicked men have killed a righteous man in his own house on his bed, shall I not now require his blood at your hand and destroy you from the earth?”

Killing a person is a sin, and requires judgment.

But there are also sins of omission. If God tells you to warn and you do not, that is a sin. But it is not the sin of another person. It is the sin of letting that person die when you were supposed to save them.
The person that Ezekiel didn't rebuke died for his own sin, was taken away in his iniquity:

Eze 33:6 But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, so that the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any one of them,
that person is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at the watchman's hand.

Ezekiel would be held responsible for the sin of Ezekiel in not giving the warning, and therefore allowing the man to die.

Your making strawman arguments no one is arguing about. I think you missed the point as to why I posted those scriptures earlier. The point of the scriptures shared with you from 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 was simply to show that God holds everyone of us accountable for leading His children away from Him into sin and not warning others in regard to sin (breaking God's commandments).

How much more does he hold Satan accountable for all the sins of God's people that have been purchased cleansed and atoned for by Christ through blood sacrifice by Jesus representing all the sin offerings in the daily and "the Lords goat in the yearly ministrations of the Priesthood. After final atonement has been made through blood sacrifice by "the Lords goat" as already shown in the scriptures, the removal of sin from the presence of God is done in the atoment between God and "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") *Leviticus 16:10; where the high Priest in the presence of God after making final atonement for all of God's people and cleansing the Sanctuary from all sin lays his hands on the head of "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") confessing all the sins of Gods' people that are then transferred to "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") who is kept alive and led away by a strong man into the wilderness to remove all sin from the presence of God and his people *Leviticus 16:10-22. So your teachings are not biblical or supported in the scriptures.

In response you claim that "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") represents Jesus. This teaching is not supported in the scriptures as shown earlier and makes a mockery of blood sacrifice and the cleansing of sin through blood atonement. There are indeed your words that are not Gods' Words that I do not believe.

But what Ellen White says is that he pays for the sins of God's people as well. And that is not the case. As a sinner, he cannot pay for other people's sins. But that is what she says.

Who says it is not the case that Satan pays the penalty for all the sins of Gods' people under the anti-type of the great day of atonement? Certainly not scripture. According to the scriptures as posted above already after all the sins of God's people have been transferred to the sin offerings in the daily ministration of the Priesthood and collectively through the yearly ministration in the great day of atonement through "the Lords goat", to make atonment between God and "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") *Leviticus 16:10; the great high Priest transferrs all the sins to the scapegoat who is then kept alive and led away into the wilderness by a strong man? Where have the sin of Gods' people been transferred to after final atonement and the cleansing of the sanctuary through blood sacrifice? - Leviticus 16:10-22. These are Gods' Words not mine that disagree with your words that are not Gods. I prefer to believe what the bible says.

"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!”

Agreed, which has just been shared with you from the scriptures above.

"You say they are not their sins.

Please do not say things I am not saying. Of course they are the sins of Gods' people I have been consistent in my posts saying from the beginning and showing from the scriptures in Leviticus 16:20-22 that says [20], And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat:
[21], And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:[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.

What I have said so there is no misunderstandings as to what I have said in the past is that Gods' people no longer own these sins which have been transferred to the sin offerings through blood sacrifice as shown in the scriptures in Leviticus 4:22:35; Leviticus 16. All of the EGW statement you have provided only agree with all the scriptures that have been shared with you here. So what is your argument? You have not made one accept to deny the scriptures that support all the EGW statements you have provided. Yet the scriptures provided and shared with you in love are Gods' Words not my words that disagree with your words that are not Gods' Word.

I think you are missing: a. the goat is FOR azazel. It is sent for azazel. You are treating it as though azazel is the goat. But that is not what is stated in the text.

I respectfully disagree with this statement as already shown in the sciptures and believe what the scriptures say that after final atonement and cleansing of the sanctuary through blood atonement, "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") is brought before the presence of God to make atonement with God *Leviticus 16:10 for the final removal of all sin from the presence of God and is kept alive nd take by a strong man into the wilderness *Leviticus 16:20-22.

b. satan can never take on other people's sins, he has his own.

I respectfully disagree with this statement as already shown through the sciptures in the yearly ministration of the Priesthood in Leviticus 16. After the final atonement has been made through blood sacrifice "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") is brought before the presence of God to make atonement with God *Leviticus 16:10 for the final removal of all sin from the presence of God and is kept alive nd take by a strong man into the wilderness *Leviticus 16:20-22.

c. The goat for removal makes atonement by removing the atoned for sins from the camp. God compeletely removes sin from the dwelling of His people.

Indeed. As posted and shown through the scriptures consistently in our discussions through the scriptures in the yearly ministration of the Priesthood in Leviticus 16, after the final atonement has been made through blood sacrifice "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") is brought before the presence of God to make atonement with God *Leviticus 16:10 for the final removal of all sin from the presence of God and is kept alive nd take by a strong man into the wilderness *Leviticus 16:20-22.

e. The Lord's goat and the goat for removal both picture works of Christ. Otherwise you are asserting that God chooses (the purpose of lots) between Christ and satan who will shed blood for God's people, and who will be sent away alive.

No! I respectfully disagree with this statement. You have not shown this in any scripture that "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") represents Jesus. That interpretation makes atonement through blood sacrifice incomplete and makes a mockery of the death of God's dear son while does not have any application to the anti-types of the new covenant which is simply impossible as shown in the scriptures to you earlier. You have simply provided an opinion here unsupported by scripture while being shown from the scripture why your opinion here does not fit scripture.

f. You have not at all explained how satan being sent away alive into the abyss (not the wilderness) makes atonement. And you have to deal with the confusing statement of Ellen White who makes him pay the price not in the abyss, but by his death, which she specifically says is paying the penalty for the sins of God's people. And that is an insult to the atonement of Christ.

I respectfully disagree with this statement as shown through the scriptures earlier in our discussions applying the types of Leviticus 16:20-22 with the anti-type of Revelation 20:1-3 once the final work of the anti-type of the final day of atonement has been completed for Gods' people, and all sins have been transferred to "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") and a strong man leads the scapegoat into the wilderness we have the antitype application in Revelation 20:1-3 says "[1], And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. [2], And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, [added in for emphasis "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel"] and bound him a thousand years, [3], And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season." After the 1000 Satan and his angels and all the wicked are then destroyed in the lake of fire (Revelation 20:4-15)

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

It's up to you. Please let me know if you would like to stop. I'm going through the posts in the order they appear on the forums so I won't know what your answer is until I reach that place. I'll continue responding to your previously written posts to me, but don't feel like you need to answer if you don't want to. And peace be with you, my brother!

No, please go ahead I love talking about Gods' Word and this gives the opportunity to share Gods Word with all those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. We should not be afraid to come to the scriptures and share Gods' Word to see if what we believe is true or not true. Coming to the scriptures light our path when it is dark and narrow. Your post here however does not address anything at all in the post you are responding to in post # 738 linked.

Take Care

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I don't agree that there is a strong link between the scapegoat and Satan. I agree there is a link, but I think it's a weak link.

You have provided an opinion unsupported by any evidence. So I am not really interested in a discussion of opinions. I personally believe that very strong evidence has already been provided from five different sources that were all in agreement. If only one source was provided to you then I agree you could make an argument that it is a weak link but that has not been the case. A total of five different sources which are all in agreement are all saying the same thing and that "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") represents Satan.

These included a (1). Scripture; (2). Jewish commentary on the Torah and meaning of the name Azazel; (3). the Apocrypha book of Enoch; (4). the BDB and English Lexicon and (5). The occult and Satanism depicting Satan as a goat. Honestly, it seem Satanists no more about the scriptures then many Christians sadly. All five independent sources are in agreement.

• Source (1) scripture from the old and new covenant showing types and anti-types
  
• Source (2) Jewish Torah commentary showing the meaning of the name of Azazel was;
  
• Source (3) refers to Azazel from the Apocrypha as the leader of the fallen angels;
• Source (4) Hebrew dictionary and Lexicon showing the meaning of the word translated "scapegoat" being Azazel meaning "removal" "fallen angel" with context to the Day of atonement (Leviticus 16).
• Source (5) The symbol of Satan in Satanism and the occult is the goat!

Collectively I believe this is strong evidence that as a whole cannot be simply hand-waived away by your opinion so we will agree to disagree on this one Leaf.

Please show why if the scapegoat isn't Jesus then it must be Satan.

This was done at great length and shown from the scriptures already to you. Perhaps you need to go back and read through our conversation. This kind of shows your not reading the posts that have already been shared with you Leaf.

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

That's right! It's my opinion. If someone else has a different one, that's okay. Remember the idea of shifting the burden of proof? It's not up to me to show that a strong link doesn't exist until a good case is made that it does.

Your the one claiming that the scapegoat is not Satan. Therefore the burden of proof is upon you to prove your claims or why you disagree that Satan is not "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel"). Meanwhile you have already been provided proof that you simply seek to hand-waive away with your opinion.

Proof already provided...

These included a (1). Scripture; (2). Jewish commentary on the Torah and meaning of the name Azazel; (3). the Apocrypha book of Enoch; (4). the BDB and English Lexicon and (5). The occult and Satanism depicting Satan as a goat. Honestly, it seem Satanists no more about the scriptures then many Christians sadly. All five independent sources are in agreement.

• Source (1) scripture from the old and new covenant showing types and anti-types
  
• Source (2) Jewish Torah commentary showing the meaning of the name of Azazel was;
  
• Source (3) refers to Azazel from the Apocrypha as the leader of the fallen angels;
• Source (4) Hebrew dictionary and Lexicon showing the meaning of the word translated "scapegoat" being Azazel meaning "removal" "fallen angel" with context to the Day of atonement (Leviticus 16).
• Source (5) The symbol of Satan in Satanism and the occult is the goat!

Collectively I believe this is strong evidence that as a whole cannot be simply hand-waived away by your opinion so we will agree to disagree on this one Leaf.

I previously addressed this. A quick summary: I don't see the same link in the scriptures that you are seeing. The BDB give the primary definition as "entire removal". The other sources are probably built on each other. I wouldn't consider them reliable. As a footnote, the BDB uses that same "ff" abbreviation I
used in an earlier post. Strong's Hebrew: 5799. עֲזָאזֵל (azazel) -- entire removal

Sorry Leaf but I respectfully disagree. All you have provided is an opinion on one source of five collective sources of evidence that are all in agreement showing that Satan represent "the scapegoat" (Azazel: "remove" fallen angel") while neglecting the fact here that "fallen angel" is also the meaning of the Hebrew: 5799. עֲזָאזֵל (azazel)

Take Care.

 

[tall73]

If you are trying to debate SDAs about some unpublished letter from Ellen White - you might need to find an SDA forum to do it.

The EGW estate put up an article giving her statements on the scapegoat, for anyone to search. Your insistence that non-Adventists are unable to understand the statements she made on the topic is really just you not wanting to deal with the statement she made on the topic.

If you have some objection to the EGW estate putting up EGW comments on the internet, or addressing topical issues, please be sure to refer that to them.

I have mentioned my view on the tactic of dragging non-SDAs all through the weeds over obscure unpublished statements. I also don't view non-SDAs as experts on the mountains-of-Ellen-White-books picture you like to post - so I don't drag them through that either.

I provide at the outside that as a non-SDA with a different set of doctrinal statements - there is little point in dragging-the-EGW debate out all over the thread - without first getting to the "easy part" - which is comparing doctrine to the Bible.

There is no point in comparing Scripture to your view. You are not the one considered inspired by your church. So we look at what Ellen White says. And you seem to wish to avoid that.

And you are stuck with people looking at her words, because they are there for all to see. You can thank the White Estate.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I was attempting to evaluate your statement here:

I believe the sentence:
"Satan is not paying the price for our sins except when he is finally destroyed."

Would mean, in part:
"Satan is paying the price for our sins when he is finally destroyed."

If it simply means Satan pays the price for being the tempter, that's fine. (There may be a philosophical issue with saying he is the originator of sin, but that's probably outside the scope of this thread.)

In Christian writing it's common to find things like:
"Jesus paid the price for our sins."

Because of that association, saying that Satan will pay for our sins would give a lot of people the wrong impression imo.


You too, my brother!

Then you have a misunderstanding as to what has been shared with from the scriptures shared with you and do not seem to understand what has already been shared with you from the scriptures.

Take care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

The EGW estate put up an article giving her statements on the scapegoat, for anyone to search. Your insistence that non-Adventists are unable to understand the statements she made on the topic is really just you not wanting to deal with the statement she made on the topic.

If you have some objection to the EGW estate putting up EGW comments on the internet, or addressing topical issues, please be sure to refer that to them.

There is no point in comparing Scripture to your view. You are not the one considered inspired by your church. So we look at what Ellen White says. And you seem to wish to avoid that.

And you are stuck with people looking at her words, because they are there for all to see. You can thank the White Estate.

There is nothing wrong with the EGW statements as shown through and supported by the scriptures already shared with you. It is the interpretation that your trying to apply to them which is the problem in my view as already shown in our discussions and through the scriptures. Your making claims in regards to interpretation of those statements which has been pointed out a number of times now no one believes. Yet your still continuing to claim we believe things according to your interpretation that no one believes. For me this is bearing false witness because you have already been corrected in regards to your interpretation of these statements that no one believes.

Take Care.

 

[tall73]

She had several editors

@Leaf473

Yes, they even hint that the editors might have been responsible for one of Ellen White's manuscripts on the scapegoat that totally contradicts all the rest of hers.

Of course, Bob will protest that it wasn't published. But the EGW estate was kind enough to provide it for us, and then attempt to explain it away:

You can read all about it here at the Ellen White Estate:

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

A couple quotes from it:

Some apply the solemn type, the scape goat, to Satan. This is not correct. He cannot bear his own sins.

Christ was the scape goat, which the type represents. He alone can be represented by the goat borne into the wilderness. He alone, over whom death had no power, was able to bear our sins.