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

[Leaf473]

Hi everyone!

I'm going to the posts in the order they were written. At first I wasn't planning to respond to any posts not actually addressed to me, but I think it would be good to jump in and hopefully make things more clear.

And please keep in mind that I have no idea what's being discussed 200 posts ahead of where I'm reading

The scapegoat can only represent Jesus or Satan right?

Another possibility is the goat is some other demon. If demons can live in pigs, seems like they could live in goats, too.

Yet another possibility is that the scapegoat is just a goat. Earlier in the story Aaron is just Aaron when he offers a bull for his own sins. If Aaron can be just Aaron, a goat can be just a goat imo.

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.

I didn't make the claim that what you were saying wasn't true. I believe I said you just hadn't built a solid case for it.

So while what you are saying might be true, I see other possibilities as well.

Bottom line, I don't see that you have established a strong link between the scapegoat going into the wilderness and Satan being thrown into the abyss.

Peace, my friends!

 

[Leaf473]

BobRyan said: ↑
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



That is one of them -- in Matt 7 we have another "By their fruits you shall know them"

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.

Okay, so far I see two parts to the test:
What they say must not contradict the scriptures, though it may expand upon them.

They must produce good fruit.

Am I understanding you correctly?

Is that the complete test that SDA's use in your experience?

From that same post:

Suppose someone here on CF asks for prayer about a a job interview later today. I write back saying that God will be with them during that interview.

Have I written something that does not conflict with but may expand on the Bible? Yes.
Am I then a prophet by SDA standards?

If that was all you knew about me, have I passed the test for being a prophet? I did not add to the scriptures, and I showed good fruit by showing compassion for others.

 

[Leaf473]

@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.



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.



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.

Thanks for calling my attention to this.

 

[Leaf473]

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.

I'm just thinking a skillful, diplomatic editor might say something like,
"You might want to go back and completely reword that section. A lot of people could get the wrong idea."
Unless of course she actually means what it looks like she means.

I see people criticizing you for allegedly taking White's statements out of context. Yet I don't see others putting up quotes from White to show the larger context and why what she appears to be saying she isn't really saying.

Now again, I am on a cell phone, it's possible those quotes have been posted and I missed them.

 

[BobRyan]

That's a possible application. I think there are some serious issues that arise with trying to make Satan the scapegoat, as I talked about earlier.

Well we differ there since the scapegoat has no input or affect on the "Sin offering" of Lev 16:15 and has no input at all in the sanctuary work that it done for mankind - and also dies for no one, and what is worse - contaminates anyone that touches it.

It is either Christ or Satan and so far it is impossible to have it be Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

Another possibility is the goat is some other demon.

Not very likely since - IF you agree it is not Christ then there is no other demon named in the Bible worthy of representing an evil-opposite of Christ more fitting than Satan.

 

[Leaf473]

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.​

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.​

How do 6 and 7 work together? If someone predicts something that doesn't happen, they can always just say it was conditional.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm just thinking a skillful, diplomatic editor might say something like,
"You might want to go back and completely reword that section. A lot of people could get the wrong idea."

Those editors and Ellen White's readers had the the benefit of "full context" -- one that some here don't have access to or don't want to present.

For example.

“As the cross of Calvary, with its infinite sacrifice for the sins of men, was revealed, they saw that nothing but the merits of Christ could suffice to atone for their transgressions; this alone could reconcile man to God. With faith and humility they accepted the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world. Through the blood of Jesus they had “remission of sins that are past.” {GC 461.1}

Those who try to snip-out and spin the position into something else - relying heavily on the readers not actually having a more full context - are the ones with the issue.

Because "in context" the scapegoat has no input at all in the Lev 16:15 "Sin offering" and no part at all in the sanctuary work done for mankind... so whatever suffering it does - changes nothing - which is why that other quote is not considered to be "a change" of something

Unless of course she actually means what it looks like she means.

No doubt --

“As the cross of Calvary, with its infinite sacrifice for the sins of men, was revealed, they saw that nothing but the merits of Christ could suffice to atone for their transgressions; this alone could reconcile man to God. With faith and humility they accepted the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world. Through the blood of Jesus they had “remission of sins that are past.” {GC 461.1}

 

[BobRyan]

How do 6 and 7 work together?

Context.

So for example Jonah says "40 days and Nineveh will be destroyed". He does not say "unless you repent of course" - but Jeremiah 18 informs us that those prophecies are conditional. I know of no Bible scholars claiming that Jonah was a false prophet - do you? Is it your claim that Jonah was a false prophet? If not -- then how do you answer our own question?

Moses does not go to Egypt with the message for Israel that is of the form "Let's leave Egypt and die in the wilderness after 40 years out there". Or is it your view that this is exactly what he was teaching them in Egypt (or do you claim he was a false prophet)?? If you like the rest of us - do not think he was a false prophet -- how do you answer your own question above?

 

[Leaf473]

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.



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.



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.

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.

Right, I was talking about other people who seem to be in favor of SDA doctrines and who, not quoting White but in their own words, say that.

It may have been in posts before you returned.

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.



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.



She had several editors...

Why did she have editors if she was moved by the Holy Spirit to speak from God?

... - 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.

At this time I think it might be good to talk about what exactly are the wages or negative rewards of sin.

I think we all here agree that the price of sin is death. The wages of sin is death.

Is there a pain component in the wages of sin as well? So a person who sends and never receives Christ will die. Will they also be tortured by God as part of the wages of sin?

I have views on these things already but I am putting them in question form so that others won't be influenced by my answers before they answer.

Also I want to note that in older styles of English the word "suffer" can be used to just mean allow or put up with. For us today, it usually means to experience pain. This could lead to misunderstandings when reading White's writings today imo.

 

[Leaf473]

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.

Do a prophet's writings have to be published in order to be testable?

If the gift of prophecy is an identifying mark of the remnant church, then I think it would be critical to identify who is and is not a prophet, even if the person in question is obscure.

 

[Leaf473]

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

I was just responding to the first part of your post. I made several posts in response to your post.

 

[Leaf473]

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.

That's right, it's my opinion. When you post compelling evidence, then I will deal with that.

A chain which contains some weak links is not a strong chain.

Simply repeating the same weak evidence over again does not further our discussion imo.

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.

I saw that you gave your reasons why you didn't think the scapegoat was Jesus.

I didn't see that you successfully limited the options to only Jesus and Satan.

One possible explanation for this is that I don't read your posts. Another possible explanation is that your posts on the subject are not as compelling as you believe they are.

I don't doubt that you believe you have made a convincing case that only someone whose mind is darkened against the truth would not accept.

Take Care.

You too, my man!

 

[Leaf473]

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").

I believe I said that the scapegoat might be Satan, but also might not be. I believe I noted some issues that arise if one says the scapegoat is Satan.

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 understand you believe you have made a strong case. I don't believe you have.

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)

I understand you disagree, I expect that!

Suppose an attorney presents a case built on the testimony of five witnesses. Sounds good so far, doesn't it?

The first witness is an upstanding citizen but doesn't actually support the attorney's case.

The second witness has a good reputation, but gives several accounts of the event in question.

The final three witnesses all live in the same household, and probably colluded on their testimony. They are also known for making up wild stories.

Has the attorney presented a strong case? I'd say No.

Take Care.

Peace be with you!

 

[Leaf473]

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.

So, do you mean that Satan simply pays the price for being the tempter, nothing else?

 

[Leaf473]

@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.

Thanks for the links.

I know that the Adventist fundamental beliefs say that White's writings speak with prophetic authority. They don't specify that it's only published writings.

So if there's no question that she wrote it, then the claim is that it speaks with prophetic authority imo.

 

[Leaf473]

It is not very hard. Go learn the difference between blood sacrifice and atonement for your sins and paying the penalty for your sins (death) without atonement. Earlier posts and scriptures that have been shared with you all show the difference between blood sacrifice and atonement for the purchasing of sin and blood atonement for the forgiveness and cleansing of sin in contrast to paying the penalty or the wages of sin that all the wicked go through at the second death which apply to all those who reject the free gift of Gods' dear son and count the blood of the covenant an unholy thing doing despite to the Spirit of God's grace that we all receive through faith *Romans 6:23; Hebrews 10:26-31; Hebrews 6:4-8.

Take Care.

Saying these two things together:
Jesus died for our sins.
Satan will die for our sins.

will give a lot of people the wrong impression imo.

If a person is using the word "for" differently in those two sentences, then that can change things.

Of course, the hearer has to know that first.

Hopefully we can resolve this more when I reach the place to see where you have answered my recent posts.

 

[Leaf473]

Yet this has been made very clear from the scriptures in the posts you have been quoting from already. It is very simple when viewed through the scriptures. At the end of atonement and cleansing of all sin through blood sacrifice from "the Lords goat" (Jesus) and the great High Priest (Jesus), "the scapegoat (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") is brought in "alive" before the presence of God and the Great high Priest confesses all the sins of God's people onto the head of "the scapegoat (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") who is then led away by a strong man into the wilderness. This is the type or prophetic illustration at the completion of the final atonement...

There is a difference between a preliminary atonement and a final atonement?

...in the heavenly Sanctuary after the Great High Priest Jesus transfers all the sins of Gods' people to the "the scapegoat (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") to be removed from the presence of God to Satan who is then led away captive by the Angel into the bottomless pit "alive" for 1000 years prior to all the wicked and the devil and his angels being cast into the lake of Fire *Compare Leviticus 16:20-22; Revelation 20:1-3.

And what happens to the sin then when Satan returns from the abyss? Does he bring the sin back with him?

Already addressed through the scriptures in other posts you have ignored. The final atonement for God's people has already been completed through blood sacrifice through Jesus as "the Lords goat" and Jesus as the Great High Priest making intercession on our behalf before God with blood atonement. Blood sacrifice transferred to the sin offerings in the daily ministration of the Priesthood and through "the Lords goat" for the collective sins of God's people pays for the penalty of our sins (death) while blood atonement made by the High Priest before God grants us God's forgiveness and cleansing of sin. Only after this has been completed the "the scapegoat (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") is brought in "alive" before the Lord and all the sins of God's people...

Sins which have been blood atoned for and forgiven and cleansed.

...are then transferred by the Great High Priest (Jesus) for the removal of all sin from the presence of God. This is to make final atonement between God and "the scapegoat (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel")

But in Leviticus 16, the goat itself has not sinned. So the atonement there is for sins of the people, and those sins have already been exposed to blood atonement. But there is still some kind of removal atonement to perform?

Then moving the story over to Satan, is he performing a removal atonement for our sins that have already received blood atonement, or his sins?

Does Satan then perform a kind of returning atonement when he brings the sins back after the abyss? That might sound like a mocking question, but it seems like it follows and I can't think of any other way to ask it.

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.

Leviticus 16:20-22 [20], And when he has 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 [representing Jesus as our Great High Priest - Hebrews 7:1-25] shall lay both his hands on 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 on 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 on him all their iniquities to a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.

The above scriptures show that all the sins of Gods' people that have already been atoned...

Blood atoned for, but not removal atoned for, it sounds like.

...for through the daily ministration of the Priesthood and "the Lords goat" in the yearly ministration of the Priesthood have been transferred to "the Lords goat" God's people no longer own then they have bee brought by Jesus through blood sacrifice.

If God's people no longer own them, then it's confusing to refer to them as the sins of God's people.

Only after the final atonement is completed through blood sacrifice from the Lords goat the final atonement between God and "the scapegoat (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel")

Atonement for the sins of God's people, or atonement for the sins of the scapegoat?

Except that God's people don't actually have sins anymore, because they were bought and God's people don't own them.

...takes place where Jesus who purchased our sins...

So now Jesus owns the sins. Following that out, I think we would say that they are sins that we committed that Jesus now owns.

...transfers them to Satan who pays the penalty for all the sins of God's people (death).

Didn't Jesus already pay the penalty of the sins of God's people which is death?

Why is Satan dying again for the same sins?

This is post-abyss, so it can't be a removal atonement imo.

Our sins have been atoned for and brought through "the Lords goat" not "the scapegoat (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel"). That atonement is between God and Satan (the scapegoat: Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") who is kept alive not us and God or us and "the scapegoat (Azazel: "remove" "fallen angel") *Leviticus 16:10; Leviticus 16:20-22.

If our sins have been atoned for then what sins is the scapegoat making atonement for between it and God?

Or is this again the difference between the blood atonement and removal atonement that you talk about?

Take Care

You too, my discussion partner!

 

[Leaf473]

So then - ignoring every "inconvenient detail" in that post we have ...



Satan suffers - but the suffering of the wicked is not salvific and even you can't deny that the "sin offering" - the atoning sacrifice in Lev 16:15 comes before anything happens with the scapegoat making your logic impossibly convoluted to try and claim the scapegoat suffering goes back in time and changes the atoning sacrifice of the one and only "sin offering" in vs 15.

As for non-SDAs getting it - well that's what makes the Adventist denomination one of the fastest growing Christian denominations on planet Earth as Christianity Today pointed out in Jan 2015

...the one and only "sin offering" in vs 15.

Jumping in here, I think both goats are referred to as a sin offering earlier.

Leviticus 16:5 And he shall take from the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats as a sin offering, and one ram as a burnt offering.

 

[Leaf473]

1. In Lev 16 - the scapegoat plays no part in the atoning sacrifice of the sin offering in Lev 16:15. By contrast Christ IS the sin offering.

That would be a reason why Jesus is not the scapegoat.

2. In Lev 16 we are told anyone who touches the scapegoat after sins are placed on it "is defiled" by contrast coming into contact with Christ "never defiles".

Which verse are you looking at in Leviticus 16 for that?

3. In Lev 16 the scapegoat has none of its blood shed nor does it have blood sprinkled on it. It forgives no one in the sanctuary because the sanctuary work is over by the time anything is done with the scapegoat. By contrast Christ's blood is shed and is the first work prior to the start of the heavenly sanctuary service as we see with the "sin offering" in Lev 16.

Okay, another reason why Jesus isn't the scapegoat.

4. Lev 17 - 6 The priest shall sprinkle the blood on the altar of the Lord at the doorway of the tent of meeting, and offer up the fat in smoke as a soothing aroma to the Lord. 7 And they shall no longer offer their sacrifices to the goat demons

Yes, or goat idols in many translations.

Lev 16: 10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the ahazel (or Azazel), shall be presented alive before Avinu, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a ahazel (or Azazel) into the wilderness.

from: Azazel - Wikipedia
In the Bible, the name Azazel (/əˈzeɪzəl, ˈæzəˌzɛl/; Hebrew: עֲזָאזֵל‎ ʿAzāʾzēl; Arabic: عزازيل‎, romanized: ʿAzāzīl) appears in association with the scapegoat rite; the name represents a desolate place where a scapegoat bearing the sins of the Jews during Yom Kippur was sent. During the end of the Second Temple period, his association as a fallen angel responsible for introducing humans to forbidden knowledge emerged due to Hellenization, Christian narrative, and interpretation exemplified in the Book of Enoch. His role as a fallen angel partly remains in Christian and Islamic traditions.

"During the end of the Second Temple period..."

That's probably at least a thousand years after Leviticus was written. That's a long time for ideas to form and meanings to change.

How much does the average English speaker today know about 1,000-year-old English or Anglo-Saxon or whatever it was back then? Pretty much nothing.

It can only represent Satan in that case.

As I've been talking about with LGW, I believe that's a false dichotomy at this point. Someone has to show that those are the only two options.

Does everything in the story represent something? At the beginning, we read about the two sons of Aaron that died. Who do they represent?