SDA Doctrine RE Satan

HP: To classify the SDA church as a cult is to redefine the word 'cult' IMO. I do NOT agree with them concerning the Sabbath, or the annihilation of the wicked, or our sins being atoned for in way by Satan. (if that is in fact what they really believe. After reading them I am still a bit unsure if one could rightly say they believe Satan is going to ‘atone’ for any sin. To bear and to atone are two differing concepts at least to me. At any rate I see only Christ as our sin bearer and atoning sacrifice in spite of my failure to understand the OT types and figures as seen in the goats. Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." )

Just the same, I feel the remarks by Shiloh are completely uncalled for as I thought those of DHK were a while back. Shiloh is judging their salvation. He is NOT their judge and has NO way to make those remarks. “He that hath the Son hath life, he that hath not the Son hath not life.” Right doctrine, especially in the areas we are speaking of, are not used as Scriptural criteria for being outside of Christ or paving the way to a devil’s hell. I believe he should be clearly reprimanded for such comments, and an apology should be in order.

 

Amen, Brother Heavenly Pilgrim -- you are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs:

 

I agree that Shiloh is out on a limb in the extreme -- but he did say one thing I thought was very funny "Lost as a ball in tall weeds" -- I think I laughed about that one for about 10 minutes!!

I don't think I have ever heard that phrase before.

In Christ,

Bob

 

That is another good point.SDAs do not believe in immortal souls, or eternal hell, and they do believe in Christ the Creator's Sabbath commandment, and they are Arminian etc

So there is a lot of room for "somebody" to find actual areas of difference to debate with SDAs without "making stuff up". Plenty of room for real discussions on real differences.


But we do not say that "Satan makes atonement" for something. Rather we INSIST that ONLY the Lord's Goat is a "sin offering" ONLY IT can be a substitutionary atoning sacrifice. In fact of the two goats only the Lord's goat is sacrificed -- only IT is "THE sin offering".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Heavenly Pilgrim and Ed,

Thank you two for saying that we are not a cult, I appreciate that very much....

we dont at all say that Satan makes any atonement for our sins, that isnt what we mean at all.


Claudia

 

Not that Im trying to be sarcastic or funny but Im just trying to imagine ahead of time how Shiloh will act when we discuss our beliefs about Hell and what happens when we die.

 

Very true. The wicked humans in the fires of hell - in the 2nd death lake of fire, do not suffer for Satan's sins - they suffer for their own.

Free will still operates as God supernaturally enables it to do so -- so no matter what the power and extent of the sinful nature, or of Satan himself -- no one is lost because either of these "made them reject Christ". Rather they must choose to reject the Gospel to be finally lost. Because of the sinful nature they are all in need of salvation - but Christ's atoning sacrifice provides forgiveness for all -- whosoever will.

The point of the Scapegoat is to show what happens in the case of sins that are not covered by the blood of Christ. In those cases the wicked pay their own debt even though Christ's blood would have covered them.

But in the case of Satan - he incurrs "additional guilt" beyond the guilt of tempting slaves in his own dark kingdom - he incurs the guilt of tempting and persecuting those who are numbered in God's Kingdom. When "Judgment is passed in favor of the saints" then all those individuals are "objectively and corporately identified" through the process described in Daniel 7.

The summation of Satan's guilt is then complete.

Lev 16 is not "a whole doctrine concerning Satan" rather it is a whole doctrine showing How God is just AND the Justifier of those that diligently seek Him. In His justices He provides for the final disposition of ALL sin -- not just the sin of the saved. But in the case of the lost - they pay their own debt --- albeit needlessly given the Gospel provision made for them.

First of all - SDAs did not write Lev 16... God did.

HE is the one telling us that in His system of justice ALL sin is dealt with all account settled all injustice resolved.

In the case of the saints "Judgment is passed in favor the saints" and the blood of Christ is seen to be sufficient to account for the debt of suffering owed for each sin committed.

In the case of the wicked - they pay their own debt of suffering "owed" for each sin comitted.

The books exactly balance. God is shown "objectively and corporately" to be just and the justifier of those that diligently seek Him.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Now that Shiloh is "making stuff up" on the thread again --

Consider this -- the definition of a cult can not be "differing with ShiloH" even though Shilow seems to boil it down to such trivia.

It is also NOT "letting shiloh make stuff up and then tear down his OWN strawmen".

These concepts are probably too far beyond what Shiloh is able to deal with for now -- but I think there are objective readers that see the point clearly.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I can hardly believe my eyes! Shiloh is trying to make a Bible based argument!!

This is really great. Let's see how long it lasts.

First problem in the argument above is that Heb 9:26 makes no mention at all of the scapegoat even though Shiloh invents the notion that the scapegoat represents the "aspect of Christ's atonement which expiates our sin from before God's presence,"

However this is telling because Shiloh has the scapegoat (something that is NOT a sin offering) making atonement for sin!!!

Nothing of the kind is mentioned EITHER in Heb 9 OR in all of Levitcus -- let alone Lev 16 -- so Shiloh simply makes it up.

A facinating approach to scripture -- but I have to say that Shiloh's model of just "making up" what you can not show from scripture IS the model used by cults. In all he has said that is the one thing that holds true.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I thought I would leave that signature for you Shiloh now that you have penned it -- it seems to suit you.

What is amazing is that you imagine that "contend earnestly for the faith" is some kind of license to spew venom and vitriol instead of upholding the Word of God and showing by your actions that you actually know Christ and value scripture.

Why not choose to embrace the Word of God and SHOW that you value it in your posts Shiloh?

Why pretend that if you demonstrate rage and vitriol that this is a valid substitute for actually making a Bible argument that holds water?

Think about it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Quote:Shiloh said
Aaron cast lots on two goats. The goat for which the lot fell for the Lord, 8-10, 15-17, depicts that aspect of our Lords death which vindicates the divine holiness expressed in the law, Rom. 3:24-26.
The live goat, which was dispatched for the scapegoat in the wilderness. 20-22, presents that aspect of Christ's atonement which expiates our sin from before God's presence, Rom.8:33,34, Heb.9:26


I can hardly believe my eyes! Shiloh is trying to make a Bible based argument!!

This is really great. Let's see how long it lasts.

First problem in the argument above is that Heb 9:26 makes no mention at all of the scapegoat even though Shiloh invents the notion that the scapegoat represents the "aspect of Christ's atonement which expiates our sin from before God's presence,"

However this is telling because Shiloh has the scapegoat (something that is NOT a sin offering) making atonement for sin!!!

Nothing of the kind is mentioned EITHER in Heb 9 OR in all of Levitcus -- let alone Lev 16 -- so Shiloh simply makes it up.

A facinating approach to scripture -- but I have to say that Shiloh's model of just "making up" what you can not show from scripture IS the model used by cults. In all he has said that is the one thing that holds true.

in Christ,

Bob

 

You were almost about to make a Bible point from Heb 9 and Romans 8 as if you actually found something there about the scapegoat to prop up your failed argument... but then you quickly dropped it.

Why drop the Bible as soon as the flaw in your argument is exposed? Why not try to find an argument that actually works even if it means dropping failed contrivances and moving on to actual exegesis in scripture?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hmm no more Bible coming from Shiloh -- even though for just a second there he almost went down that road.

Now even his pointless ranting is sounding hollow. hmm what to do.. filter or not to filter...

 

Im thinking its probably just not quite as much fun for Shiloh to pick on Bob as it was to do it to me.

 

Through all of this muck, I find it astonishing that no one on either side of this argument has been banned from the board for un Christian conduct. There were some here who were banned for much, much less than this. WHERE ARE THE MODERATORS ON THIS ONE? What a shame on us all! Is it worse to be a Calvinist or to propagate a false gospel? Is it worse to argue Biblically or to rant on senslessly in an attempt to defend the faith using the most offensive methods possible? People, we need to get our stuff straight here, we need to start reforming before this becomes the norm here. I have my own views on this, but BOTH sides here are out of line.

Semper Reformata,
Dustin


Disclaimer: Don't take this as me being "holier than everybody else". I myself have been guilty of the same thing. But after prayer and time in the Word, I realized that ones point can be made clearly AND calmly and still pack the intended punch. This is a dicussion board, sure, but it's also a Christian board. At this point, it's no different here than a board full of atheists arguing over worldy things. Surely we can do better, may the Lord help us do so.