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

[Leaf473]

So then -- 3 minutes ago #841

And thank you for that post!

As Lev 16 points out the sins of the saints are blotted out in the sanctuary based on sin offering of Lev 16:15 "alone" -- and that work is completed BEFORE anything is done with the scapegoat later on in Lev 16.

Blotted out from who? Aaron? Then how is he able to confess the sins of the saints over the scapegoat?

 

[Leaf473]

He has been speaking for himself. I am also speaking for myself, and we are all in the same forum conversation. So if you raise a point when speaking to him that I want to address, then I do.

Yes, it's a group discussion.

And aren't we all friends here, @LoveGodsWord?

 

[Leaf473]

@Leaf473
@pasifika
@ChetSinger

The same thing I noted initially, that Adventists see Jesus as moving sins around, until it lands on satan who must pay the penalty is still evident after all this time. LGW sees the death of Christ as buying the sins of God's people so that it can be placed on satan.

Jesus did not die just to move sins around. He paid the price. satan cannot pay for the sins of God's people because Jesus already did.

But LGW does now seem to fully agree with Ellen White, in admitting they are our sins, and does not seem to be arguing any longer that they are just the part satan played, so I will give him credit on that.

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!”

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.

To me, it makes it sound like the role of Jesus is more that of a sin-courrier than a sin-resolver.

Of those with whom I am in basic disagreement here, I haven't yet read anyone's explanation of how the atonement of the Lord's goat changes the sin. Or how that changed sin is still potent enough that it must be removed from God's presence.

 

[Leaf473]

tall73 said: ↑

@Leaf473 identified this trend earlier. You can only see a dichotomy.

But I have said multiple times that in multiple possible views, some involving azazel being a personal name, and some referring to a goat of departure as the etymology, that sin is carried out by the goat to the wilderness. It does not necessitate Jesus being the goat. Jesus the High Priest, sends sin out of the camp. He removes all sin from the dwelling place of His people.




I have said that the sending of sins away from the camp is the work of Christ. I have said the goat sent away does not represent satan.

But that does not mean the goat that is sent away IS Christ.

This is the false binary choice that @Leaf473 tried to get you to look at, but you would not.

Possibilities for the goat:
1. represents Jesus
2. represents satan
3. represents something else neither Jesus nor satan.

The third option is what Leaf473 mentioned that you did not want to consider.

The high priest sends away the goat with the sins on it, sending them out of the camp. The goat is representing the sins going out of the camp. They are sent away by the high priest, by Christ. Jesus removes sin from the camp.

We have a parallel in the text for this, noted by both Jewish and Christian commentators. In Leviticus 14 in the cleansing right for a leper we have two clean animals referenced:


Lev 14:3 and the priest shall go out of the camp, and the priest shall look. Then, if the case of leprous disease is healed in the leprous person
Lev 14:4 the priest shall command them to take for him who is to be cleansed two live clean birds and cedarwood and scarlet yarn and hyssop.
Lev 14:5 And the priest shall command them to kill one of the birds in an earthenware vessel over fresh water.
Lev 14:6 He shall take the live bird with the cedarwood and the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, and dip them and the live bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water.
Lev 14:7 And he shall sprinkle it seven times on him who is to be cleansed of the leprous disease. Then he shall pronounce him clean and shall let the living bird go into the open field.

This uses two clean animals to show both blood cleansing for the uncleanness, and the removal of the contamination from the camp through the other bird.

In the same way the Lord's goat is presented before the Lord to make blood atonement:

Lev 16:9 And Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the LORD and use it as a sin offering

And the goat for removal is used to remove the sin from the camp:

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

Yes, I had that same thought about a possible parallel with the two birds in Leviticus 14.

 

[Leaf473]

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.

There are other issues in addition to the ones you're talking about there.

The goat doesn't return, Satan does.

The scapegoat comes from the congregation of israel, Satan does not.

Aaron casts lots over the goats to see which is which. No lots are cast between Jesus and Satan sometime in the future, since Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world.

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

Again, I haven't seen anyone show that it has to be one of the other. It looks to me like there are other possibilities as well.

 

[Leaf473]

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.

But Satan is not the evil opposite of Christ. That's putting Satan and Jesus in the same category imo.

Also, I don't see the goats as being opposites of each other. They just have different roles.

 

[Leaf473]

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.



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



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}

Is your quote from Ellen White there in the same section that @tall73 quoted so as to provide context?

I would check it out myself but that's difficult to do here on a cell phone.

 

[Leaf473]

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?

This is the way I currently see it. I'm open to reevaluating the situation.

The office of prophet has ceased. That is to say, prophets such as Jonah or Jeremiah will not be raised up again.

The New testament speaks of the offices of apostle and prophet. Just as the office of apostle has ceased, the office of prophet has ceased.

One of the reasons I believe this is because no good test can be proposed today.

The gift of prophecy spoken of in 1 Corinthians 12 is something different from the office of prophet.

It is a gift which works in many ways similar to the word of wisdom and word of knowledge and the gift of discerning of spirits. I think these gifts are all available to all believers, though some believers will be more skillful and practiced at certain gifts than others.

##############
Kind of a follow-up question:
Is there a scripture passage that speaks of the gift of prophecy as being an identifying mark of the remnant Church?

 

[tall73]

Is your quote from Ellen White there in the same section that @tall73 quoted so as to provide context?

I would check it out myself but that's difficult to do here on a cell phone.

His is from chapter 27 of the GC on page 461.

The Great Controversy, by Ellen G. White. Chapter 27: Modern Revivals


One of the Scapegoat comments in chapter 28 on Page 486

The Great Controversy, by Ellen G. White. Chapter 28: Facing Life's Record

Try reading both chapters, and see if it clarifies anything for you.

Or read the whole book if you like, and see if it clarifies anything for you. The last chapter also has reference to the scapegoat.

It looks like you are caught up now! That is a lot of reading.

I don't have a lot of time at the moment to add much, but I think you got a good general view of the issues.

 

[tall73]

This is the way I currently see it. I'm open to reevaluating the situation.

The office of prophet has ceased. That is to say, prophets such as Jonah or Jeremiah will not be raised up again.

The New testament speaks of the offices of apostle and prophet. Just as the office of apostle has ceased, the office of prophet has ceased.

One of the reasons I believe this is because no good test can be proposed today.

The gift of prophecy spoken of in 1 Corinthians 12 is something different from the office of prophet.

It is a gift which works in many ways similar to the word of wisdom and word of knowledge and the gift of discerning of spirits. I think these gifts are all available to all believers, though some believers will be more skillful and practiced at certain gifts than others.

##############
Kind of a follow-up question:
Is there a scripture passage that speaks of the gift of prophecy as being an identifying mark of the remnant Church?

But if you want her most direct statements try reading Early Writings. It also refers to the scapegoat.

Early Writings, by Ellen G. White. Table of Contents


But if you do read the Great Controversy you can also check out the changes they made from the first edition to the second. This relates the discussion Prescott, an Adventist academic, and Ellen White and her staff had regarding use of sources, wording, etc.

Ellen G. White® Estate: W. W. PRESCOTT AND THE 1911 EDITION OF GREAT CONTROVERSY

 

[LoveGodsWord]

It looks like you are caught up now! That is a lot of reading. I don't have a lot of time at the moment to add much, but I think you got a good general view of the issues.

Not really. All @Leaf473 posts have done is ignore the post content that has been shared with him stating he disagrees without showing why he disagrees while simply repeating what he said that is addressed in detailed scripture responses that disagree with everything he has said which is why I have not bothered responding to be honest.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

And aren't we all friends here, @LoveGodsWord?

I hope to be everyone's friend. The question should rather be are we the friends of Jesus according to John 15:14? Thanks for your posts Leaf. I decided not to respond to them. All you have done in your posts here is to repeat your self, provide an opinion unsupported by evidence or scripture while ignoring all the posts that have been shared with you and misrepresenting what I have said to you even after clarification was provided through the scriptures in the posts you were quoting from. As I said in the beginning, to me that is not the type of discussion that I have any time for to be honest. Perhaps you can pray about it.

Take Care.

 

[BobRyan]

This is the way I currently see it. I'm open to reevaluating the situation.

The office of prophet has ceased.

Well everyone has free will. You can believe as you wish.

But Eph 4 does not seem to support that idea. In Eph 4 we are told that it continues until the 2nd coming.

The New testament speaks of the offices of apostle and prophet. Just as the office of apostle has ceased, the office of prophet has ceased.

The New testament speaks of the offices of teachers, pastors, prophets and Apostles. It does not say all these have "ceased".

But there is a case for Apostles "ceasing" made in Acts 1.

15 At this time Peter stood up among the brothers and sisters (a group of about 120 people was there together), and said, ....21 Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us— 22 beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” 23 So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all people, show which one of these two You have chosen 25 to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26 And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.

So then not very many people could be qualified as "Apostle" by that criteria. By contrast that is not at all the Criteria that the Bible uses for prophets - so then the Bible calls Anna in the Temple a prophet, it calls Agabus a prophet and Paul says everyone in 1 Cor 14 had the gift of prophecy which could only have happened after Christ went to heaven since there were no Christian evangelists in Corinth before that.

But that is just the Bible as some might say - so they may not agree with me on that point.

The gift of prophecy spoken of in 1 Corinthians 12 is something different from the office of prophet.

Not according to scripture (Note 1 Cor 14 follows after 12 and 12 specifically puts it as an office like pastor and Apostle - as does Eph 4.) - but as I said you have free will and can believe as you wish.

Kind of a follow-up question:
Is there a scripture passage that speaks of the gift of prophecy as being an identifying mark of the remnant Church?

Rev 12:
17 So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest (the remnant) of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

Rev 19
10 Then I fell at his feet to worship him. But he *said to me, “Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brothers and sisters who hold the testimony of Jesus; worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”

Rev 22
9 And he *said to me, “Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brothers the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God!”

 

[BobRyan]

Blotted out from who? Aaron? Then how is he able to confess the sins of the saints over the scapegoat?

All the work of blotting out happens in the sanctuary -- the scapegoat is not there for blotting out sins, is not there as the sin offering of Lev 16:15 and plays no part at all in the sanctuary service of Lev 16.

 

[BobRyan]

“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}

Is your quote from Ellen White there in the same section that @tall73 quoted so as to provide context?

I think Tall73 was quoting from Early Writings in the post you replied to - and my reference above shows that I am quoting from Great Controversy - page 461.

As I remind everyone in my exchange with Tall73 -- dragging non-SDAs through his endless all-Ellen-White quotes is not the right way to go. Stick with the Bible and stick with the actual voted Fundamental Beliefs because non-SDAs do not have the years of experience reading through all of Ellen White's material.

I would check it out myself but that's difficult to do here on a cell phone.

I understand - but I don't recommend that approach because it is backwards. You save yourself all the trouble simply by looking at the published doctrines and comparing them to scripture - if you differ at that point - there is no point in doing anything with Ellen White's writings because even SDAs would say not to accept her as a prophet if you feel the Bible does not support the doctrines of the Adventist church that she claimed God was in favor of. IT is very simple that way and cuts through Tall73's habit of trying to find obscure Ellen White quotes.

 

[BobRyan]

There are other issues in addition to the ones you're talking about there.

The goat doesn't return, Satan does.

Not true. Satan never returns to the camp of the saints once he is sent away. He ends up alone on Earth for 1000 years - and even when the wicked are raised in Rev 20 at the 2nd resurrection - he has only the wicked with him - those already doomed to the lake of fire, he never gets access to the saints again.

 

[BobRyan]

The scapegoat comes from the congregation of israel, Satan does not.

The birds come from the sky - Jesus did not come from the sky. Birds are used as substitutes for lambs in the temple service.. Jesus did not come from a mother or father sheep. Jesus' father was God not someone on par with His mother - but the lamb's parents were equals to each other - both of them sheep. You can take any of the symbols extend it beyond the point it is depicting and reach all kinds of odd guesswork.

I would never challenge the argument that doing such things is very possible.

 

[BobRyan]

Again, I haven't seen anyone show that it has to be one of the other. It looks to me like there are other possibilities as well.

According to Rev 12 the war is specifically between Christ and Satan - and no angel of Christ or angel of Satan is mentioned as leading one or the other group "instead". I choose to stick with the Bible and in Lev 16 the good goat represents Christ and the evil counterpart can only be Satan.

You have free will of course and can reach for any sort of idea that you wish.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Nothing happens with the scapegoat until the sin offering is completed and all the atonement in the sanctuary work is ended.

The scapegoat cannot affect any of what has gone before much less "diminish" it

The goat removing atoned sins from the camp does not diminish Christ's atonement.

True because nothing that happens after the completed atoning sacrifice of Lev 16:15 regarding the sin offering "goes back in time and edits that sacrifice" - obviously.

And so nothing that happens in the sanctuary itself "goes back in time and edits that sacrifice" - obviously.

And in the same way the suffering of the wicked - including the suffering of Satan as the scapegoat cannot "goes back in time and edit that sacrifice of the sin offering the atoning sacrifice completed once for all" - obviously.

Ellen White's comments that the sins of God's people which Jesus paid for are then paid for by the suffering of satan for them is what diminishes the work of Christ,

Not logically since we already agree that the suffering of the wicked who pay the debt for their own sins does not go back in time and "diminish the work of Christ" in Lev 16:15 where he already paid their debt in full. obviously.

That point remains.

Because He already paid for them.

Indeed for both groups - He already paid. Nothing changes that.

 

[BobRyan]

The sins are carried off on the goat, making the person defiled.

The sins are put on the goat - making the goat defiled and anyone who touches it defiled.

By contrast - no one is defiled that touches Christ. The goat is representing an evil being- and not representing "another goat" nor Christ. It is the counter-part to the "Lord's Goat" the counter-part to the "sin offering". It is in fact not a blood sacrifice at all and so it plays no part at all in the sanctuary work. In fact the antitype event has not even happened yet to this very date.

But that is strange you say no one who comes into contact with Christ is defiled, when the doctrine of Adventists says that His precious blood caused sins to go into the sanctuary.

You keep struggling with "the type" - as pointed out the blood going into the sanctuary is not Jesus dumping gallons of blood in heaven - rather it is the act of claiming his blood sacrifice on behalf of the one whose sins are being confessed and forgiven at that moment. This gets said many times in this thread so far.