SDA Doctrine RE Satan

Dustin,

you would kinda understand if you couldve seen how this person has been acting on other threads

Like this one:

Question to our SDA friend

 

Yes, I do understand how Shiloh acts, I've read the other threads. His ranting doesn't give you SDA's a reason to respond mockingly. You know better than that. If the moderators were moderating then something would have been done before things got this far. Indeed, some were banned for much less than his ranting, and your mocking responses.

Dustin

 

well honestly I just dont care.

Normally I would but in this case I just dont.

All I can say is you ought to have to had this person following you wherever you go saying mean things to you and maybe you'd see how it feels. Its always different if you are in someone else's shoes.

Go write to the Moderator about it if it bothers you so much. Personally I find Bob's comments to be very entertaining after how this person has treated me. Sorry. Im not feeling my "Christian Best" right now.

To be truly honest, I think you need to pick your battles, and over all the mean things people have and are saying to others on this board, I think this isnt the one you ought to be worrying about. I also have to wonder why you havent said anything till now, like for instance all this time when shiloh has been following me around acting like a

 

I would argue that your two-gospel model is false -- and you seem to argue that my one-gospel model in harmony with Gal 1:6-9 and in harmony with Heb 4 "The gospel has been preached to US JUST as it was to them as well" is false.

Having that debate is not "out of bounds".

Your argument that the very existence of a view that does not fit with yours should get that view censored is totally unreasonable.

BTW -- not only were some statements on this thread cleaned up by the monitors -- so also was the very title of the thread itself.

In Christ,

Bob

 

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 offering, and sprinkled it upon the mercy seat, directly over the law, to make satisfaction for its claims.

Now in your imagination picture him in his character of MEDIATOR, he takes the sins upon himself and bears them from the sanctuary.

He then puts his hands on the head of the scapegoat, and he confesses over the scapegoat all these sin, and by doing this he transfers the sins FROM HIMSELF ---TO THE SCAPEGOAT.

The goat then BEARS them away, and they ARE regarded as forever separated from the people.


The Mediator representing Jesus of course...

and as we have pointed out, the scapegoat sheds no blood.


and the scapegoat is NEVER allowed back in the congregation ever again.



its a pretty simple idea that if you are wicked and not accepting of the atonement of Christ then you and Satan are going to have to pay for these sins.



Think about it. You have the sins of God's people on the one hand....


and you have the sins of the wicked on the other hand....

If God is going to use the Sanctuary symbolism to show us what happens to the sins of the pentinent... which are placed upon the head of Christ...

WHERE DO THE SINS OF THE WICKED GO? they have got to go SOMEWHERE!

simple isnt it? think of it that way...

they go on the scapegoat... Im hoping you dont think the scapegoat is Jesus Christ?????

Im sorry but Jesus did not pay for the sins of the wicked. Jesus didnt pay for the sins of Satan either.

Thats why they all get thrown into the Lake of Fire of Hell.


and this whole notion that says that SDAs are saying Satan "atones" for our sins is just ridiculous, nobody is saying anything of the kind.


the ultimate RESPONSIBILITY goes on his head. thats why there is no shed blood with THAT goat. where there is no shedding of blood there is no atonement.

Azazel is the name of the scapegoat which means the wicked one.

 

I hope that explains it :wavey:


and as you can see there is nothing at all we are saying that ought to make anyone get the idea that Satan or the scapegoat is making some sort of "atonement" for our sins... because thats just not true

 

It is false.
The gospel was never revealed until the New Testament. And when it was revealed to the Jews it had to be accompanied by the sign of tongues and other miraculous pheomena for them to believe or at the very least to regard it as a message being from God (1Cor.14:21,22).
Hindsight is always better than foresight. It is not so hard for people to look back into the OT, and see the prophecies that are now fulfilled in the NT; but it was almost impossible for those in the OT to understand what those prophecies meant while living in that age.

In the OT we have Christ concealed;
In the NT we have Christ revealed.

Paul tells us what the gospel is in 1Cor.15:1-4

1 Corinthians 15:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

The gospel is a simple message of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Through that message one is saved. That is what Paul has said.
That message was not preached in the OT.
Abraham believed God and it was imputed unto him for righteousness sake. His belief was in Jehovah. He believed in God according to the light that God revealed unto Him. There was no gospel as such at that time. The resurrection had not yet taken place. Without a resurrection there is no gospel. Argue with Paul on that point.

Therefore the gospel of the OT that you speak of is a false gospel.
The gospel that you keep referring to is the one Dustin referred to in Gal.1, another gospel, and the one who preaches it is accursed.
You take Scripture out of context to try and prove your point, but just because people ignore responding to every detail of your post does not mean that you have proved your point; it only means that people have gotten tired of your ranting.

There is one gospel. It is a NT message. It was accompanied with signs and wonders in the NT. It is the death and burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This could not of taken place before the fact had happened. All other "gospels" are false gospels taught by false teachers.

All Scripture is inspired of God and is profitable for us; but it is not to be taken out the context in which it is written and applied in ways it was not intended as so many cults do.

 

Not sure that's completely accurate, DHK, but I guess it depends on your theology.

I believe that the focal point of all of Scripture is Jesus Christ. Thus Old and New Testaments are declarations, in one way or another, of the Good News.

There's one Gospel, but it permeates both Testaments.

But that's just one theological view, I'm sure.

 

You are right in a sense TP. For example we have the first Messianic Promise given in Genesis 3:15. But did Eve understand that to be a prophetic passage even to include the method of the death of Christ just from that passage? I don't think so. She may have understood that it was a promise of God to send another deliverer, but that is about all. In hindsight we see much more than that.
The question is not, how much of Christ do we see on the pages of the Old Testament; but rather how much of Christ did the OT saints see on the pages of the OT? And that is an entirely different question.

 

Point taken.

 

HP: I am still in the process of study on this scapegoat notion. The jury is still out as far as I am concerned. Just the same, the two ideas you put forth are both refuted by reputable sources.

First, Alfred Edersheim in “The Temple” states that the Jews in fact did shed the scapegoat’s blood, by backing it off a cliff in the wilderness so as to assure that it would not return.

Secondly, the word Azazel does not see to be said to mean what you say it does by noted authors such as Adam Clarke. He claims the word is made up of two words, Az which means “a goat” and azel which means “dismissed or sent away.” There is not the slightest indication that I can find that the word Azazel means ‘the wicked one’ as you have indicated.

 

HP: First, sin was not ‘paid for’ at the cross as the literal payment theory claims, but rather an atonement for sins was made that made it POSSIBLE for the forgiveness of all sins if in fact one would fulfill the conditions God mandated that MUST be fulfilled in order for the atonement to be applicable to cover for ones sins. The blood of Christ spoke directly to the laws demands for sin. It did not ‘specifically’ pay for any in particular, but made a way for the possibility of ALL sin to be forgiven under certain conditions. Those conditions are initially repentance and faith. As we fulfill the conditions, the blood is applied to our life and cleanses us from all sin.

 

1Peter 1[/b]
10 As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries,
11 seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow.[/b]
12 It was [b]revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you[/b], in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you[/b] by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven things into which angels long to look.

Hebrews 4
1 Therefore, let us fear if, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it.
2 For indeed we have had good news (gospel) preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard.

John 8
7 ""Do not be amazed that I said to you, "You must be born again.'
8 "" The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.''
9 Nicodemus said to Him, ""How can these things be?''
10 Jesus answered and said to him, "[b]"Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?[/b]

Gal 3
7 Therefore, be sure that it is [b] those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.



As we join WITH Abraham in that Faith - we are among the Saints - both OT and NT no Change. The same Solution - Faith in God.
And so we too are children of Abraham of Abraham for we like him are those who accept salvation “by hearing with faith” and not “by works of the law”.


Gal 3
8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "" ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU.''

Gal 3
5 So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?
6 Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.

The gospel principle was active even with Abraham - Belief and Faith - resulted in salvation - RIGHTEOUSNESS before God - NOT by the flesh but
"by the Spirit". ONE Gospel (Gal 1:6-7) for all time – preached to Abraham as well

Paul is arguing that EVEN in the case of Abraham it’s not “salvation by the works of the law” rather it was back then “by hearing with faith”!

Romans 4
2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
3 For what does the Scripture say? "" ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.''
4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.
5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,
6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
.
The point is clear on the subject of the Gospel of grace in the OT – by faith apart from works..

============

Gal 3
7 Therefore, be sure that it is [b] those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.

None are soooo blind as those who will not see.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Or to be more precise - the blood of Jesus Christ shed FOR the wicked is not applied as payment for their sins since they never accept Christ as their Savior which would have resulted in His saving work applied to their souls.

(And of course - Christ did not die for Satan to begin with -- Satan is finally and irrevokably lost )

In Christ,

Bob

 

What was the point of those Scriptures Bob. I really don't get your point and I am sure that others don't either. Not one of them have to do with OT saints believing in "the gospel" of the OT, for there was none for them to believe. Your religion preaches to you a false gospel, and it has indoctrinated you in the same way. There is only one gospel. Paul describes it for us in 1Cor.15:3,4. That clear message is not found for the OT saints in the OT. It takes place after the resurrection. The OT saints were before the fact took place. I suggest you study your Bible in the light of Biblical history. Take the historical starting place of when the resurrection place with reference to the OT prophets.

 

Im thinking maybe as long as you keep on starting threads about it?
ya think? Its a concept thing.


Im thinking like ummmmmmmmm... stop doing that?

If you think really hard it might come to you.


*Just trying to be of assistance