Author |
Message |
River Registered user Username: River
Post Number: 442 Registered: 9-2006
| Posted on Friday, January 26, 2007 - 4:35 am: | |
Colleen wrote: Mary, I'm curious, too. I've heard that "antitypical day of atonement" phrase used by 1888-ers. Is that an Ellen phrase, or is that a phrase developed to explain and justify the IJ and make this time period since 1844 correspond to the Day of Atonement in Israel? (A trick, at any rate, because a great deal more than a day has passed since 1844!) _________________________________________________ 1. Judgment in the Old Testament, the identification of the little horn power, the year/day principle, and October 22, 1844, as the antitypical Day of Atonement. Its all tied in with the IJ, the convolution of Daniel and the 2300 days. Ellen White claimed God told her in vision the doctrinal switch was "true light," and that the Jewish Day of Atonement in 1844 (the 10th of Tishri) occurred on October 22. EGW "The tenth day of the seventh month, the great Day of Atonement, the time of the cleansing of the sanctuary, which in the year 1844 fell upon the 22d of October, was regarded as the time of the Lord's coming. This was in harmony with the proofs already presented that the 2300 days would terminate in the autumn ... the close of the 2300 days in the autumn of 1844, stands without impeachment." ó The Great Controversy, pp. 400, 457. The entire theological concept of "cleansing" the heavenly sanctuary requires it to first be contaminated. In support of that concept Ellen White claimed the blood of animal sacrifices was taken daily into the Holy Place and thus, in type, the earthly sanctuary was polluted with sin through that blood: Lately questions have been forming in my mind about what particular area we should concentrate on if we would fight the untruths that hold these people captive. River
|
River Registered user Username: River
Post Number: 443 Registered: 9-2006
| Posted on Friday, January 26, 2007 - 4:41 am: | |
Update on BiL. Many prayers were sent up for BiL. He Awoke yesterday morning from the comatose state. His diabetes went way down. Pulse rate went way down. Kidneys began to function with full output. He began to take nourishment. Pretty dramatic. River |
Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone
Post Number: 410 Registered: 6-2006
| Posted on Friday, January 26, 2007 - 5:51 am: | |
Praise God for the good news River! Glad to hear about your BIL. Praying for a full recovery... Leigh Anne |
Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2
Post Number: 805 Registered: 8-2004
| Posted on Friday, January 26, 2007 - 9:39 am: | |
Wonderful news River! Thanks for sharing about your BIL. We serve a prayer hearing God!! Grace_Alone and Colleen, I don't remember if EGW used the words the 'Antitypical Day of Atonement', but she definitely taught the concept. The place I remember reading that actual phrase was in a book called 'The Cross and It's Shadow.' That book attempts to show how all of the temple service of the OT was fulfilled not just with Jesus, but with other events that followed Jesus, bringing us down to the 'Antitypical Day of Atonement' that is supposed to have begun October 22, 1844 and continued on till nowish soon to be replaced with the feast of tabernacles if I recall correctly. One of the strange things I remember from that book was that some of the 'antitypical feasts' seemed to last only on one particular day of one particular year - for example the 'antitypical day of pentecost', which lasted only that one 'fiftieth day' after Jesus crucifiction - while others linger on for years! Blessings, Mary |
Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 3374 Registered: 3-2004
| Posted on Friday, January 26, 2007 - 3:13 pm: | |
River, So Glad God has made your BIL better. Isn't He awesome. Diana |
Stevendi Registered user Username: Stevendi
Post Number: 66 Registered: 10-2006
| Posted on Friday, January 26, 2007 - 3:37 pm: | |
River, glad to hear your BIL is better. When things like this happen, I always look for something else special from God. There will be some sort of blessing for you and your family in this, besides just the healing. Look for it together and praise Him together. Steve |
Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone
Post Number: 412 Registered: 6-2006
| Posted on Friday, January 26, 2007 - 3:43 pm: | |
Mary, do the "antitypical feasts" include linkettes? Definitely antitypical. Thanks for the info. I feel like a lot of these terms are layers upon layers over the IJ, meant to justify and confuse. Let's just stick to the simple, solid gospel of Jesus Christ! Leigh Anne |
Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1689 Registered: 10-2004
| Posted on Friday, January 26, 2007 - 3:51 pm: | |
U2, do you have more information or links about those Messianic Jews you mentioned? Also, do they believe that the actual goat represents Satan, or only that Azazel is Satan? The only groups I've heard of that teach that Satan is the scapegoat are the SDA church (and it's offshoots) and the Church of Satan. It amazes me that everyone says that the Mormons have a different Jesus because they teach that Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer, but they don't believe that the SDAs have a different Jesus, when they teach that Jesus is a co-sin-bearer with Satan (although Satan is the only one who actually gets rid of the sins according to SDA theology!!)! Colleen, yes, EGW, and therefore SDAs, use the phrase "antitypical Day of Atonement," and they also say that we are living in "the great day of atonement"--but somehow this "day" lasts for years (centuries!) rather than just one day. These phrases come from The Great Controversy as well as elsewhere:
quote:"The condition of the unbelieving Jews illustrates the condition of the careless and unbelieving among professed Christians, who are willingly ignorant of the work of our merciful High Priest. In the typical service, when the high priest entered the most holy place, all Israel were required to gather about the sanctuary and in the most solemn manner humble their souls before God, that they might receive the pardon of their sins and not be cut off from the congregation. How much more essential in this antitypical Day of Atonement that we understand the work of our High Priest and know what duties are required of us." (The Great Controversy, 1911 edition, page 430, paragraph 3.) "We are now living in the great day of atonement. In the typical service, while the high priest was making the atonement for Israel, all were required to afflict their souls by repentance of sin and humiliation before the Lord, lest they be cut off from among the people. In like manner, all who would have their names retained in the book of life should now, in the few remaining days of their probation, afflict their souls before God by sorrow for sin and true repentance. There must be deep, faithful searching of heart. The light, frivolous spirit indulged by so many professed Christians must be put away. There is earnest warfare before all who would subdue the evil tendencies that strive for the mastery. The work of preparation is an individual work. We are not saved in groups. The purity and devotion of one will not offset the want of these qualities in another. Though all nations are to pass in judgment before God, yet He will examine the case of each individual with as close and searching scrutiny as if there were not another being upon the earth. Everyone must be tested and found without spot or wrinkle or any such thing." (The Great Controversy, 1911 edition, page 489, paragraph 3.) "The forgiveness of sins and iniquities and transgressions, belongs in a special sense to this time. We are in the anti-typical day of atonement, and every soul should now be humbling himself before God, seeking pardon for his transgressions and sins, and accepting the justifying grace of Christ, the sanctifying of the soul by the operations of the Holy Spirit of Christ; thus the carnal nature is transformed, renewed in holiness after the image of Christ's righteousness and true holiness. [...]" (Appeal and Suggestions to Conference Officers, page 25, paragraph 2.) "Here is the work of our Intercessor, [on] the great antitypical day of atonement, where [the] work of judgment is going on with the dead. How soon will it begin with the living, when every one of our cases will pass in review before God? And let it be understood by you that if you do not [do] the work that God has given you, you will be weighed in the balances of the sanctuary and found wanting. To us who have this hope and faith it is a dangerous thing to be putting off the day of God. Matt. 24:48." (Sermons and Talks, Volume Two, page 27, paragraph 1.)
Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on January 26, 2007) |
Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 5330 Registered: 12-2003
| Posted on Friday, January 26, 2007 - 5:40 pm: | |
Ah, Jeremy, thank you. She does use the phrase... River, your questions about where to begin with Adventists is really a good one. I'm not sure there is only one answer. In general, however, the cognitive dissonance begins to get noisy when Adventists hear the real gospel. Now, many of them just reinterpret the gospel words to fit Adventism, but some actually ponder the problems. I believe the only way one makes any difference with an Adventist, really, is by praying for him and speaking when God gives openings to speak. Arguing with them is pointlessóand if they're defensive or beligerent, they will just slide around what you say with slightly twisted definitions and slightly off-center logic. I believe that in a great many cases, change comes over a period of years, not months and certainly not weeks. Evidence and dissonance keep piling up until a critical mass forms, and their denial breaks open into conscious turmoil. Happy antitypical Sabbath to all...! (Isn't it great to rest in Jesus?!) Colleen |
U2bsda Registered user Username: U2bsda
Post Number: 451 Registered: 11-2004
| Posted on Friday, January 26, 2007 - 5:49 pm: | |
Jeremy, I was surprised to find that they believe the goat actually represents Satan. From my understanding they believe the scapegoat is representative of Satan being cast into the lake of fire. Here are some links: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9011535/Azazel http://www.messianicjewishonline.com/article1222.html http://www.mayimhayim.org/Festivals/Feast8.htm
|
Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1692 Registered: 10-2004
| Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 4:09 pm: | |
U2, Thanks for the links. It looks like the first link describes the traditional non-Messianic Jewish understanding of the goat going to Azazel, a fallen angel. The other two links, though, do sound very heretical--if they are actually teaching that the scapegoat is Satan. I know that there are many problems with many Messianic groups--some do not believe in salvation by grace alone through faith alone, and some even deny the deity of Jesus Christ. That third link is a bit confusing, though. One part of it says the following:
quote:The Hebrew word for scapegoat is azazel. Azazel was seen as a type of satan (Ha satan) in the intertestamental Book of Enoch (8:1). The sins of the people and thus the punishment of the people were laid upon azazel the scapegoat. He would bear the sins of the people and the punishment of the people would be upon him. Azazel being sent into the wilderness is understood to be a picture of satan (Ha satan) being cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 19:20).
But then later in the article it says:
quote:In the ceremony of the two goats, the two goats were considered as one offering. A crimson sash was tied around the horns of the goat marked azazel. At the appropriate time, the goat was led to a steep cliff in the wilderness and shoved off the cliff. In connection with this ceremony, an interesting tradition arose that is mentioned in the Mishnah. A portion of the crimson sash was attached to the door of the temple (Beit HaMikdash) before the goat was sent into the wilderness. The sash would turn from red to white as the goat met its end, signaling to the people that G-d had accepted their sacrifices and their sins were forgiven. This was based upon Isaiah (Yeshayahu) 1:18. As stated earlier, the Mishnah tells us that 40 years before the destruction of the temple (Beit HaMikdash), the sash stopped turning white. This, of course, was when Yeshua was slain on the tree.
Now, if they're saying that Satan is a sacrifice and bears the punishment of our sins, and that is how our sins are forgiven--then that is obviously Satanism--no way around it. But this second quote almost sounds like a contradiction of the first quote--since it mentions that the sash did not turn white after Jesus' death. Here it almost sounds like they are saying that Jesus fulfilled the scapegoat ceremony. I think that perhaps in that first quote they are only describing what they believe to be the intertestamental understanding of the Book of Enoch, but are not endorsing it. Although, if that is the case, they certainly could have made it clearer. The second link does sound like it is teaching that Satan is the scapegoat, though. Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on January 27, 2007) |
U2bsda Registered user Username: U2bsda
Post Number: 453 Registered: 11-2004
| Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 5:31 pm: | |
Thanks for your insights Jeremy. I've had a difficult time trying to follow what they were saying. I understand the viewpoint that the scapegoat going into the wilderness is representative of our sins being removed from us. I just feel like the symbolism is more specific than that. It is half of the atonement and the other half seems to be very specific in it's representation of the death of Jesus so I was looking to see if I could discover more specifics regarding the scapegoat. Does anyone know if there are there groups out there who have specific beliefs regarding the scapegoat going TO Azazel/Satan? |
Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob
Post Number: 422 Registered: 7-2005
| Posted on Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 5:58 am: | |
quote:It amazes me that everyone says that the Mormons have a different Jesus because they teach that Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer, but they don't believe that the SDAs have a different Jesus, when they teach that Jesus is a co-sin-bearer with Satan (although Satan is the only one who actually gets rid of the sins according to SDA theology!!)
Jeremy, the same idea came to my mind these days, comparing the mormon view with the adventist view of Jesusregarding Jesus and Satan as brothers in mormonism, but they are viewed on the same level in the day of atonement, in adventism. Actually, in this day of atonement, Satan receives more honour than Christ because
quote: Not until the goat had been thus sent away did the people regard themselves as freed from the burden of their sins.PP, page 355
Jesus blood has not freed people from the burden of their sins, at least, not completely, even in the supposedly day of atonement started in 1844. Even in this final atonement, Satan completes the work of liberation from sins. Who receives the final credit? Of course, Jesus's blood plays an important role, but not the decisive one. I recognize that adventists explicitly exclude Satan from atonement, and sincerely believe that the process of atonement finishes when Jesus will blott out their sins from the books of heaven. Perhaps this sincere belief, which is in harmony with the arminian gospel, is why many evangelicals see no problem with the scapegoat doctrine. But, there is a "but". Suppose the adventist view about the day of atonement is correct, suppose that what christians believe that happens the moment somebody believes in Jesus, full and complete forgiveness of all sins (past, present and future), will happen only after they pass the scrutinity of the Investigative Judgment, in the final and antitypical day of atonement, when Jesus will blott their sins by His blood. Well, if just the timing is different, they will experience complete freedom from the guilt and condemnation of sins when the judgment ends. When the judgment is over, they will have total peace with God, being finally free from the burden of sins. But this will not happen, according to the official doctrine. Even after Jesus will blott out their sins from the books of records, they will not have peace with God, and will not be free from the burden of their sins. The time of trouble will follow, when their distress regarding their sins will increase. They will have anything else but peace with God! They will go throught the time of trouble with great doubts about their justification, haunted by their past sins. This is the proof that in adventist's view Jesus's blood is not sufficient to cancel sin, and to free someone from the burden of his sins. Even after the judgment, they will carry their burdens, the sins will haunt them. I think that this is a clear proof that the SDA position regarding atonement is so twisted that cannot fit with the christian position at all, because practically Jesus blood will not obtain for the believers the peace with God and freedom from the burden of sins not even in the final hour. From what I know, the final time of trouble is still the official teaching of the church. This teachings destroys all the benefits of the gospel, leaving the believer without an anchor, today, before his supposed judgment, and after the judgment. It's very hard to be a christian in this way, or to enjoy the benefits of the gospel, when you know that the time of trouble is ahead. Only by ignoring the idea of a time of trouble, someone can benefit from the gospel, and also ignoring other cardinal doctrines of the church. |
Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 5337 Registered: 12-2003
| Posted on Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 11:16 pm: | |
Jackob, that is an extremely insightful analysis. I'd never thought of the issue quite like that. You're right, thoughóAdventist theology clearly teaches that "Jesus' blood does not obtain peace with God and freedom from the burdn of sins." The comparison that I thought of as we were leaving the church is that Adventism's view of Jesus and Satan is similar to Mormonism's in that the Great Controversy pictures Satan and Jesus in a conflict between near equals. Who will win? Christ or Satan? Even today they are picutred in battle against each other. This picture is blasphemous. There is no battle between Christ and Satan. Jesus has completely conquered sin and has disarmed Satan and his minions (Colossians 2:14-15). Satan continues to stir up troubleóbut only as much as God allows him to do so. It is so "mormon" to think that Jesus and Satan are any kind of rivals. They are NOT on the same planeóand in spite of Ellen's statements that Jesus was the highest angel whom God exalted to the position of His Son, such an idea is heretical and blasphemous. You are right, Jackobóin spite of how we don't like to think of it, Adventism's view of Jesus is not Biblical and bears resemblance to Mormonism's viewóalbeit with differences. Even thought Adventists became more Trinitarian as time passed, Ellen still made statements into the 1900's about Jesus being an angel. Adventism obscures the true gospel and keeps many people from truly hearing it. Colleen |
Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1694 Registered: 10-2004
| Posted on Monday, January 29, 2007 - 1:29 pm: | |
Before I discuss the scapegoat issue, allow me to post some quotes from EGW.
quote:"Satan and his angels suffered long. 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!'" (Early Writings of Ellen G. White, page 294, paragraph 2.) "Satan did not then exult as he had done. He had hoped to break up the plan of salvation; but it was laid too deep. And now by the death of Christ he knew that he himself must finally die, and his kingdom be given to Jesus. He held a council with his angels. He had prevailed nothing against the Son of God, and now they must increase their efforts and with their power and cunning turn to His followers. They must prevent all whom they could from receiving the salvation purchased for them by Jesus. By so doing Satan could still work against the government of God. Also it would be for his own interest to keep from Jesus as many as possible. For the sins of those who are redeemed by the blood of Christ will at last be rolled back upon the originator of sin, and he must bear their punishment, while those who do not accept salvation through Jesus will suffer the penalty of their own sins." (Early Writings of Ellen G. White, page 178, paragraph 1.) "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 Great Controversy, page 422, paragraph 2.) "Once a year, on the great Day of Atonement, the priest entered the most holy place for the cleansing of the sanctuary. The work there performed completed the yearly round of ministration. On the Day of Atonement two kids of the goats were brought to the door of the tabernacle, and lots were cast upon them, 'one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat.' Verse 8. The goat upon which fell the lot for the Lord was to be slain as a sin offering for the people. And the priest was to bring his blood within the veil and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat and before the mercy seat. The blood was also to be sprinkled upon the altar of incense that was before the veil. '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: and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited.' Verses 21, 22. The scapegoat came no more into the camp of Israel, and the man who led him away was required to wash himself and his clothing with water before returning to the camp. The whole ceremony was designed to impress the Israelites with the holiness of God and His abhorrence of sin; and, further, to show them that they could not come in contact with sin without becoming polluted. Every man was required to afflict his soul while this work of atonement was going forward. All business was to be laid aside, and the whole congregation of Israel were to spend the day in solemn humiliation before God, with prayer, fasting, and deep searching of heart." (The Great Controversy, page 419, paragraphs 1-3.) "Important truths concerning the atonement may be learned from the typical service. A substitute was accepted in the sinner's stead; but the sin was not canceled by the blood of the victim. A means was thus provided by which it was transferred to the sanctuary. By the offering of blood, the sinner acknowledged the authority of the law, confessed his guilt in transgression, and expressed his desire for pardon through faith in a Redeemer to come; but he was not yet entirely released from the condemnation of the law. On the day of atonement the high priest, having taken an offering from the congregation, went into the most holy place with the blood of this general offering, and sprinkled it upon the mercy-seat, directly over the law, to make satisfaction for its claims. Then, in his character of mediator, he took the sins upon himself, and bore them from the sanctuary. Placing his hands upon the head of the scape-goat, he confessed over him all these sins, thus in figure transferring them from himself to the goat. The goat then bore them away, and they were regarded as forever separated from the people. Such was the service performed "unto the example and shadow of heavenly things." And what was done in type in the ministration of the earthly, is done in reality in the ministration of the heavenly. After his ascension, our Saviour began his work as our high priest. [...] As the sins of the people were anciently transferred, in figure, to the earthly sanctuary by the blood of the sin-offering, so our sins are, in fact, transferred to the heavenly sanctuary by the blood of Christ. And as the typical cleansing of the earthly was accomplished by the removal of the sins by which it had been polluted, so the actual cleansing of the heavenly is to be accomplished by the removal, or blotting out, of the sins which are there recorded. [...]" (The Spirit of Prophecy, Volume Four, page 265 paragraph 1-page 266 pararaph 1.) "'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: and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited.' Not until the goat had been thus sent away did the people regard themselves as freed from the burden of their sins. Every man was to afflict his soul while the work of atonement was going forward. All business was laid aside, and the whole congregation of Israel spent the day in solemn humiliation before God, with prayer, fasting, and deep searching of heart. Important truths concerning the atonement were taught the people by this yearly service. In the sin offerings presented during the year, a substituted had been accepted in the sinner's stead; but the blood of the victim had not made full atonement for the sin. It had only provided a means by which the sin was transferred to the sanctuary. By the offering of blood, the sinner acknowledged the authority of the law, confessed the guilt of his transgression, and expressed his faith in Him who was to take away the sin of the world; but he was not entirely released from the condemnation of the law. On the Day of Atonement the high priest, having taken an offering for the congregation, went into the most holy place with the blood and sprinkled it upon the mercy seat, above the tables of the law. Thus the claims of the law, which demanded the life of the sinner, were satisfied. Then in his character of mediator the priest took the sins upon himself, and, leaving the sanctuary, he bore with him the burden of Israel's guilt. At the door of the tabernacle he laid his hands upon the head of the scapegoat and confessed 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 as the goat bearing these sins was sent away, they were, with him, regarded as forever separated from the people. Such was the service performed 'unto the example and shadow of heavenly things.' Hebrews 8:5." (Patriarchs and Prophets, page 355, paragraphs 4-5.) "The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel the sin; it would stand on record in the sanctuary until the final atonement; so in the type the blood of the sin offering removed the sin from the penitent, but it rested in the sanctuary until the Day of Atonement. In the great day of final award, the dead are to be 'judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.' Revelation 20:12. Then by virtue of the atoning blood of Christ, the sins of all the truly penitent will be blotted from the books of heaven. Thus the sanctuary will be freed, or cleansed, from the record of sin. In the type, this great work of atonement, or blotting out of sins, was represented by the services of the Day of Atonement--the cleansing of the earthly sanctuary, which was accomplished by the removal, by virtue of the blood of the sin offering, of the sins by which it had been polluted. As in the final atonement the sins of the truly penitent are to be blotted from the records of heaven, no more to be remembered or come into mind, so in the type they were borne away into the wilderness, forever separated from the congregation. Since Satan is the originator of sin, the direct instigator of all the sins that caused the death of the Son of God, justice demands that Satan shall suffer the final punishment. Christ's work for the redemption of men and the purification of the universe from sin will be closed by the removal of sin from the heavenly sanctuary and the placing of these sins upon Satan, who will bear the final penalty. So in the typical service, the yearly round of ministration closed with the purification of the sanctuary, and the confessing of the sins on the head of the scapegoat." (Patriarchs and Prophets, page 357 paragraph 5-page 358 paragraph 2.) "When the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord, then the sins of the repentant soul who has received the grace of Christ and has overcome through the blood of the Lamb, will be removed from the records of heaven, and will be placed upon Satan, the scapegoat, the originator of sin, and be remembered no more against him [the redeemed saint] forever. . . . When the conflict of life is ended, when the armor is laid off at the feet of Jesus, when the saints of God are glorified, then and then only will it be safe to claim that we are saved, and sinless." (Selected Messages, Book 3, page 355, paragraph 5.) "[...] Then I saw that Jesus' work in the sanctuary will soon be finished. And after His work there is finished, He will come to the door of the first apartment, and confess the sins of Israel upon the head of the Scape Goat. Then He will put on the garments of vengeance. Then the plagues will come upon the wicked, and they do not come till Jesus puts on that garment, and takes His place upon the great white cloud. Then while the plagues are falling, the Scape Goat is being led away. He makes a mighty struggle to escape, but he is held fast by the hand that leads him. If he should effect his escape, Israel would lose their lives. I saw that it would take time to lead away the Scape Goat into the land of forgetfulness after the sins were put on his head." (Spalding and Magan Collection, page 2, paragraph 1.) "Much love to your dear father and to your sisters and brother. Tell them to be faithful to serve God. I have often prayed for them. Tell them to pray much that their sins may be confessed upon the head of the scapegoat and borne away into the land of forgetfulness. A little longer and Jesus' work will be finished in the sanctuary." (Manuscript Releases, Volume Nineteen, page 131, paragraph 3.
I apologize for the length of these quotes, but I first wanted to establish what EGW teaches regarding the scapegoat, etc. Jackob, you wrote: quote:I recognize that adventists explicitly exclude Satan from atonement, and sincerely believe that the process of atonement finishes when Jesus will blott out their sins from the books of heaven.
You are right that a lot of times they will claim that they don't teach that Satan has a part in the atonement--but this claim is simply a false claim. For one reason, the SDA definition of "atonement" is different than the Christian definition. If we use the Christian definition of "atonement," then we see that Adventism does teach that Satan atones for the sins of the righteous (but not the wicked--limited atonement). Sometimes, SDAs will say that Satan has to bear the sins because he is the originator of sin--thus trying to make it look like it is not substitutionary. But this argument completely falls apart when you look at the fact that their doctrine is that Satan only bears the sins (and the penalty/punishment of those sins) of the righteous--and that the wicked have to bear the penalty of their own sins (see above EGW quotes)! According to Adventism, then, the sins of the righteous are obviously not something that Satan has to bear in order to receive the justice due him. Therefore, it is a substitutionary atonement for our sins by Satan--no way around it. What a horrific doctrine it is! The Biblical, Christian definition of Jesus' atonement for our sins is the "putting away" of sin (Hebrews 9:26)/the actual "blotting out" of sins (Acts 3:19)/the taking away of sin (John 1:29)--the getting rid of our sins! And according to Adventism, all of that is done by Satan--NOT by Jesus (see above EGW quotes). (They teach that Jesus "blots out" the record of our sins in the IJ, but Satan is the one who actually "blots" the actual sins out of existence.) Thus, according to the correct Biblical Christian definition of "atonement," Adventism teaches that Satan is the one who atones for our sins. In Adventist theology, Jesus' "atonement" (whether on the cross or the post-1844 "atonement") really does not accomplish much at all. And of course, the early Adventists taught that there was no atonement on the cross at all. In Adventism, all Jesus' "atonement" does for you is help you make yourself "eligible" for Satan's real "atonement"--the actual removal of your sins! In Adventism, Jesus' blood does not "cancel sin"--it only pollutes the most holy place in the universe--God's throne room--with our sins (see above EGW quotes). Then, according to Adventism, Jesus places the sins on Satan, who actually gets rid of the sins by bearing the penalty for them (which they teach is annihilation). With regards to the word "atonement," though--they actually do have to use that word, since Leviticus 16 uses that word with regard to the scapegoat, and EGW uses that word, and of course the scapegoat is part of the "Day of Atonement"! And so, they do admit that they must use the word "atonement" with regard to Satan, in their official belief book. Here is one quote:
quote:The scapegoat ritual on the Day of Atonement pointed beyond Calvary to the final end of the sin problemóthe banishment of sin and Satan. The "full accountability for sin will be rolled back upon Satan, its originator and instigator. Satan, and his followers, and all the effects of sin, will be banished from the universe by destruction. Atonement by judgment will, therefore, bring about a fully reconciled and harmonious universe (Eph. 1:10). This is the objective that the second and final phase of Christ's priestly ministry in the heavenly sanctuary will accomplish."22 This judgment will see God's final vindication before the universe.23 --http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-23.htm
And under footnote 21, they say:
quote:If Azazel represents Satan, how can Scripture (see Lev. 16:10) connect him with the atonement? As the high priest, after having cleansed the sanctuary, placed the sins on Azazel, who was forever removed from God's people, so Christ, after having cleansed the heavenly sanctuary, will place the confessed and forgiven sins of His people on Satan, who will then be forever removed from the saved. "How fitting that the closing act of the drama of God's dealing with sin should be a returning upon the head of Satan of all the sin and guilt that, issuing from him originally, once brought such tragedy to the lives of those now freed of sin by Christ's atoning blood. Thus the cycle is completed, the drama ended. Only when Satan, the instigator of all sin, is finally removed can it truly be said that sin is forever blotted out of God's universe. In this accommodated sense we may understand that the scapegoat has a part in the 'atonement' (Lev. 16:10). With the righteous saved, the wicked 'cut off,' and Satan no more, then, not till then, will the universe be in a state of perfect harmony as it was originally before sin entered" (The SDA Bible Commentary, rev. ed., vol. 1, p. 778). --http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-23.htm#21
Again, in those quotes you see some of that argument about Satan being the originator of sin to try to make the doctrine sound "better," which, as I pointed out above, is not a valid argument. But notice that they do use the word "atonement." Also, notice that when EGW says "this work of atonement" in one of those quotes at the beginning of this post, she is including both the slain goat and the scapegoat and describing it all as one "work of atonement." In other words, the same kind of atonement that the slain goat provides, the scapegoat also provides. And then in the other quote, she says that the kind of "atonement" provided by the scapegoat is one of being "freed from the burden of their sins"! In conclusion, this doctrine is the most Satanic doctrine ever invented. In view of this doctrine, I don't know if it is fair to the Mormons to place Mormonism in the same category as Adventism! This doctrine puts Adventism in the same category as the Church of Satan, which also teaches that Satan is the scapegoat. (BTW, speaking of Mormonism, it is interesting to note that Adventism has basically the same view of the Godhead that Mormonism has.) Jeremy |
Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob
Post Number: 423 Registered: 7-2005
| Posted on Monday, January 29, 2007 - 1:55 pm: | |
Thanks Colleen, Some time ago, I asked myself the question: WHEN a believer will have peace with God? Until now I believed that the evangelical and true answer is, "The moment he believes", and the adventist answer is "After Investigative Judgment". Only yesterday it dawned on me that the adventist answer is "Never on this earth". I'm not writing on FAF with a determination to paint my former faith (adventism) as black as possible, I want to be as charitable as possible with it. Consequently, I check every time if obscure doctrines, like the scapegoat, have practical implications in the life of adventists. Initially I thought that such an obscure doctrine as the scapegoat, which many adventists don't even understand enough, has no impact on the majority of them. I thought that without a proper understanding, the effect of a bad doctrine is diminished to the point of having no effect. But the practical consequences of this doctrine is present in the end time scenario, well known by adventists, even cultural, I guess. The idea of a final persecution for the saints, with adventists passing through the time of trouble being assailed by uncertainty about their sins and salvation, is largely accepted by all types of adventists, both historical and evangelical, even cultural. I was surprised to discover that even if somebody is ignorant about some bad teachings of the church, the adventist message has such an internal coherence (if we can speak in this way in spite of many contradictions), which leaves no one free from the influence of even what they don't know, or openly reject. Talking with adventists, often they deny that they believe some teachings of the church, but strangely, they are still affected by them. For example, the evangelical adventists reject the perfectionism of the IJ, but because they still cling to a judgment which examines their works, they are insecure enough to be in the same situation as someone who is perfectionist. Since they are always sinning, the only certainty is that there is always room for a better position, always room for improvement, and who knows if the present condition of sanctification passes the investigation. Since the sanctification is never complete, so is also their assurance of salvation, incomplete, not to say, inexistent. After becoming aware of how deeply adventists can be affected by the doctrines of their church, even in an indirect and unconscious way, I believe that it's harder to bring an adventist to the true faith in Jesus, than I used to believe. It's like you are having in front of you somebody who is tied with invisible, or minuscule cords, which you are not aware of. How can you cut the cords, when you don't see them? Only God can do this. |
Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob
Post Number: 424 Registered: 7-2005
| Posted on Monday, January 29, 2007 - 2:53 pm: | |
Jeremy, Speechless ! ! ! Jackob |
Tisha Registered user Username: Tisha
Post Number: 220 Registered: 3-2005
| Posted on Monday, January 29, 2007 - 5:57 pm: | |
So well said Jackob! You are able to articulate clearly what I now understand since leaving the SDA Denomination! I thought because in my home EGW wasn't held up as infallable, that because I didn't believe all the SDA doctrine, I had escaped all the brainwashing. But it is so true about the subtle, but very strong, influence the doctrines have on every single belief or understanding one may hold. Even when I thought I knew what Salvation, Grace, sin, etc. was, I really didn't understand it in the correct, Biblical way. I am so thankful that I was able to break free of all that indoctrination - although I know I need to be vigilent in my study so that I am not still being influenced by the SDA doctrine that I was so immersed in growing up as an SDA.
|
River Registered user Username: River
Post Number: 456 Registered: 9-2006
| Posted on Monday, January 29, 2007 - 6:40 pm: | |
In conclusion, this doctrine is the most Satanic doctrine ever invented. _________________________________________________ Jeremy, Thanks so much for you good post, I am saving it for later reference. How true the above statement Jeremy. After four years of study the thing reminds me of a big ball of fishing leader I have pulled up at times, it is a hopeless mess of leads, ends and trails that lead nowhere. It is the most subtle, the most hard to get a handle on thing I have ever dealt with bar none. Jacob you are so right on when you indicated that one cannot be Adventist in any form and be free of any of its doctrine. It permeates all areas of ones life if caught up in it, although I have never been in it I can see where that is so. I may or may not be doing some good for my Adventist friends so seemingly hopelessly caught up in such a thing but I can do what I can for them and I can pray for them as if it were me caught up in it, if I were caught up in a deceit I would want some one to pray for me. River
|
Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2
Post Number: 809 Registered: 8-2004
| Posted on Monday, January 29, 2007 - 7:22 pm: | |
River, keep on keeping on! When I was a child of somewhere around 10, my parents both worked so a neighbor family sometimes babysat us. They were Pentecostal (the husband was a Pentecostal minister) and therefore definitely on the wrong road in my book at the time . . . but they were wonderful Christian people. I loved spending time at their house with their three children and their assorted menagerie of goats and sheep and whatnot (and sugar cane - that's some good chewing!). They were kind, friendly, and always warm to our family. I had high hopes that they would 'come to the truth'. I remember explaining patiently what we could and couldn't eat, could and couldn't watch on the very few TV stations that came in in the backwoods we lived in, etc. (now that I think about it it would seem that mom should have been the one to inform them of that stuff. Maybe she did!). I tried to use the Bible to show them 'the truth'. One discussion particularly I remember was about what to eat. This was a discussion I'd thought about and planned for some time. I'd even read up on it and memorized several verses to use. But when the time came the discussion did not go as I'd planned. Mr and Mrs C were both home that evening and listened and shared and listened some more as I tried hard to defend my faith. I sputtered and explained, and explained again using 'Biblical reasons' (the misapplication of the 'your body is the temple' verse, 'health reasons' (mostly from EGW arguments) etc, but seemed to get nowhere with them. Gently they explained that that was not what they had found in the Bible or from the guidance of the Holy Spirit in their lives. I think they referred to a few New Testament texts. But when I when I challenged them to show me where I was wrong they said that it was not their place to contradict what my parents were teaching me. I was left with the impression that they were still the same friendly, kindly Christian folk they'd been before the discussion but I was crushed. I'd been so sure that 'right' would win! It left me with the firm plan to study till I COULD defend the right - and had figured out what WAS right. And that's one of the many 'beginning points' of my journey out of Adventism and into the risky, joyful proposition of being just me, in Jesus, before God. So if your seeds don't show signs of sprouting anytime soon don't give up! The seeds the C's planted (not only in that conversation but also in just the every day way they lived, in the stories Mrs C would tell about how God worked in this or that incident in their lives, and so on and so forth) have sprung up into life for me some 20 years later. Blessings, Mary
|
Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 3391 Registered: 3-2004
| Posted on Monday, January 29, 2007 - 8:07 pm: | |
Mary, that is a beautiful story. I am so glad you had these lovely people to care for you and teach you-plant the seeds. River, You and all of us pray for our adventist friends and family. Who knows what God will use to get to them. I am SO GLAD THAT ALL I HAVE TO DO IS PLANT THE SEED. God and the Holy Spirit will do the convincing and convicting. Let us be encouraged that God will keep his promises. He is always awesome. Diana |
River Registered user Username: River
Post Number: 457 Registered: 9-2006
| Posted on Monday, January 29, 2007 - 8:08 pm: | |
Mary, Thank you so much for that, your story is so much of an encouragement. And thanks for the memories of the sugar cane too, it must have been 40 years since I had remembered chewing on a stalk of sugar cane but I can actually sit here and remember the sweet taste of the cane juice. Funny how one or two words bring back so many memory's of a houseful of kids, a farm full of animals and gnawing on a stalk of sugar cane. God surely has blessed us with the ability to store so much information and to be able too recall the softer times just when we need it. God Bless River
|
Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 5343 Registered: 12-2003
| Posted on Monday, January 29, 2007 - 10:44 pm: | |
Jeremy and Jackob, thank you so much. You have stated so clearly the core of the problem with Adventismóand you've used Ellen White and the results of applying her clear statements to one's belief system to explain this reality. Without doubt, the problem of Adventism is not just misunderstood or misstated doctrine. It is actually an evil spirit. Brain damage could not invent such a sinister and interlocking theology as Adventism. And the reality of how HARD it is to disucss these issues with Adventists or for them to understand the clear meaning of the Bible is proof that the problem is spiritual blindness and deception. As you said, Jackob, even the not-understood aspects of Adventism hold Adventists in bondage. Even if they don't know the doctrines and the real teachings of Ellen, the spirit of Adventism still has a spiritual claim on them and obscures the gospel. It is my firm conviction that when an Adventist actually meets Jesus and becomes open to knowing the truth and actually leaving the church, it is a miracle of God. I know, Jeremy, that your clear statement about its being Satanic is shocking and offensive to many peopleóeven to many of us who have been Adventists. But the fact is that the doctrines of the church include Satan being the ultimate sin-bearer of the saved. This doctrine is not a mere misunderstanding or an "oops!". It is satanic, as you saidóand how significant that the church of Satan is the only other organization that teaches that Satan actually bears the sins of people. It is SO subtleóit is hidden behind "the gospel" and "grace" and "tolerance" and "righteousness by faith" and on and on...but underneath, all these words have tentative, perverted meanings to an Adventistóeven the most liberal or evangelical ones. Frankly, people look at us as if we have two heads when we say there is an evil spirit underlying Ellen's writings/visions and Adventism itself. Yet it is true. How much more blatant could one be than Ellen was in saying that Satan bears away the sins of the righteous, that atonement is not complete until Jesus places their sins and the sins of all the angels on Satan's head to be born away? This is clearly a doctrine of demons. These facts underlie the deep difficulty Adventists have in seeing the truth of the Bible and of Jesus Himself. This is not to say God does not save Adventists who desire to know Him and commit themselves to finding Him. God knows His own, and He pursues them. Everything about the church is subtle and hard to define. I have a friend who has recently realized her employment at an Adventist institution (she is a former) is about to end. She is being "eased" out because of her "former" status. She told me today that for the first time (she has been a "former" for several years) she is experiencing the "shunning". It is very subtle, but it is very profound. She is now on the "outside"; her "former" status can no longer be tolerated, and there is pressure at any rate for Adventist institutions to replace all non-SDA program directors with Adventists. She, therefore, is marked. It is as real as moonlightóand as hard to pinpoint. Adventists are truly bound, and we do need to pray for them and for us to be able to speak clearly when God gives opportunities. Simulatneously, we must dress ourselves in God's armor (Ephesians 6:10-18) every day. In Jesus we are secure. He protects our hearts and minds. Colleen |
River Registered user Username: River
Post Number: 460 Registered: 9-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 9:20 am: | |
Colleen, All I can say to your post is Amen and Amen. |
Susans Registered user Username: Susans
Post Number: 386 Registered: 8-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 5:29 pm: | |
Colleen! Amen from me as well!!! To all your post, but especially these parts - "Without doubt, the problem of Adventism is not just misunderstood or misstated doctrine. It is actually an evil spirit. Brain damage could not invent such a sinister and interlocking theology as Adventism. And the reality of how HARD it is to disucss these issues with Adventists or for them to understand the clear meaning of the Bible is proof that the problem is spiritual blindness and deception". "Frankly, people look at us as if we have two heads when we say there is an evil spirit underlying Ellen's writings/visions and Adventism itself. Yet it is true. How much more blatant could one be than Ellen was in saying that Satan bears away the sins of the righteous, that atonement is not complete until Jesus places their sins and the sins of all the angels on Satan's head to be born away? This is clearly a doctrine of demons." Jeremy, you are spot on with the doctrine of demons that is the Investigative Judgement/Day of Atonement/scapegoat version of the "gospel" of Adventism. Thank you for continuing to post the truth! Jackob, thank you for articulating the dilemma of Adventists-they are in bondage even when they don't realize it if they hold to the end time scenario as portrayed in GC and EW. Even if they haven't read those books, they assent to those doctrines in the belief of a Sunday Law, among other unique Adventist "truths". This is why I agree when saying that many Adventists really don't truly KNOW Jesus because they are not only confused about who He IS, but also what He has DONE to redeem us. Adventism's Jesus is only partially responsible for our redemption. Yes, He provided the "blood", but it's Satan who finally bears away their sins. (shudder) Susan |
Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis
Post Number: 972 Registered: 4-2000
| Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 8:36 pm: | |
Well said about Adventism, Colleen! The late Dr. Walter Martin said in 1955: "Cultism is any major deviation from orthodox Christianity relative to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith." Sadly and unshamedly, the SDA hierarchy even deceived him big time for most of his professional life. Dennis Fischer |
Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1699 Registered: 10-2004
| Posted on Wednesday, January 31, 2007 - 12:34 pm: | |
Susan, what you said about "blood" brings up another point--one which I didn't want to even mention, because it's so horrific. When EGW says that Satan bears the penalty and punishment for the sins of the righteous, she is talking about physical death/annihilation. And according to EGW, Satan has a physical body (flesh)--thus, according to EGW, the shedding of Satan's blood is what actually gets rid of and atones for the sins of the righteous, according to EGW's satanic gospel! Ugh--I hope I am done with this thread--can't stand thinking about it, or having to type that even! Jeremy |
Larry Registered user Username: Larry
Post Number: 42 Registered: 5-2007
| Posted on Friday, July 27, 2007 - 8:54 am: | |
Late to the party, but here is the short of it: sda's run immediately to Leviticus and the old testament to prove what all services are going on in the heavenly temple since 1844. If they would just settle down and read the book of Hebrews, they would discover that Lord Jesus has become a priest in the order of Melchizidek, NOT LEVI. We know how Levitical priests functioned, but we know not much about the Melchizidekian priesthood, except that the Son sat down at the right hand of His Father until his enemies will be made his footstool. So sda's claim they know all about what is going on in the heavenly temple. I maintain they know nothing about what is going on. To say that the scapegoat scenario has something to do with the Melchizidekian priesthood is adding to the Bible and Proverbs 30:6 states: Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar. |
Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe
Post Number: 466 Registered: 11-2005
| Posted on Friday, July 27, 2007 - 11:58 am: | |
Larry, That is an excellent point! It has fascinated me with how Adventists insist on using the Old Testament to interpret the new. Gilbert Jorgensen |
|