Bill - 23 May 2008 10:02 AM

Greg, what are you saying?  That Jesus covers the sins of Satan?  You don’t believe that Satan will pay for his sins?  I’m confused at what you are trying to say and think you need to clarify.

Bill, I am saying that the Levitical day of atonement dealt with the sins of the Israelites and foreshadowed the work of Jesus in satisfying God’s wrath against sin (propitiation - first goat) and removing it completely from the redeemed (expiation - second goat). By putting Satan into the Levitical day of atonement typology, you make him a participant in this process and worse, Jesus’ atonement remains unfinished until the second goat (Satan in your view) finally bears away the sins of the world.

Greg

Greg - 23 May 2008 10:17 AM

Bill - 23 May 2008 10:02 AM

Greg, what are you saying?  That Jesus covers the sins of Satan?  You don’t believe that Satan will pay for his sins?  I’m confused at what you are trying to say and think you need to clarify.

Bill, I am saying that the Levitical day of atonement dealt with the sins of the Israelites and foreshadowed the work of Jesus in satisfying God’s wrath against sin (propitiation - first goat) and removing it completely from the redeemed (expiation - second goat). By putting Satan into the Levitical day of atonement typology, you make him a participant in this process and worse, Jesus’ atonement remains unfinished until the second goat (Satan in your view) finally bears away the sins of the world.

Greg

Greg, I’m tired of repeating this… You can’t mix your terms and definitions with the historical interpretation.  You attempt to equate the historical belief of Satan as the second goat and put your interpretations of the terms on what the second goat does.  Your interpretation of the terms involved relate to what Jesus does for us.  Go back and reread the last few posts I wrote to Gabriel.  The Day of Atonement was a process of cleansing sin from the sanctuary.  This typifies, not the ongoing forgiveness of sin that took place during the year by various sin offerings, but the final cleansing and removal of sin from the sanctuary and camp itself.  How many times do I have to say that Jesus pays for my sins alone.  There is no one else that pays for my sins.  Furthermore, Jesus paid at the cross and the transaction is complete as long as I remain a believer.  That SHOULD tell you there is something wrong with what you are suggesting. 

The type that is portrayed by the second goat is at THE END, Satan will pay for his own sins including sin he is responsible for as instigator.  For example, Satan will pay a price at the end for his involvement with Adam and Eve’s sin.  EVERYONE was cursed as a result of this (Adam, Eve and Satan) Jesus paid for Adam and Eve at the cross, but Satan will get his due in the end.  This should also tell us that Satan does have an instigator role in our sins and that God recognizes this.  The anti-type of the first goat and priest is Jesus entering into the heavenly sanctuary where He ministers on our behalf (we are still sinning), using the blood shed on the cross.  When His ministry is complete in the heavenly sanctuary, He returns and deals with the second goat.  THE END.

Bill - 23 May 2008 07:09 AM

Aaron - 23 May 2008 04:54 AM

Jesus appeases God’s wraith for me through His death.  The Devil has no substitute but will, I believe, appease God’s wraith on his own body.  Included in the sanctuary model is the idea that he bears the responsibility for others sins as instigator and ultimately the responsible party.  I know you don’t agree with that, but that is ok.  I always tell folks, your free to make your own mistakes…

Are you saying that Satan propitiates the wrath of God?  How can anything sinful satisfy or appease the just wrath of a holy God in any way?

What I am saying is that there is no substitute to pay for Satan’s sins.  Satan’s utter destruction will appease the wraith of God against Satan.  Why would God continue to be angry against something that no longer exists?

Satan does not appease the wraith of God in my behalf, if that is what you were thinking I was saying!

I wasn’t saying that you were saying Satan appeases the wrath of God on our behalf.  But even for himself, how can Satan possibly propitiate (or appease/satisfy) his own sin by being annihilated?  At what point can God show mercy by putting an end to Satan’s suffering in hell (or ours for that matter) and on what basis is God even able to extend this mercy without satisfactory payment and still be divinely and perfectly just?  God’s holy wrath against sin cannot be appeased by anybody other than Christ which is why it had to be a perfect sacrifice because God is holy.  God cannot show mercy against sin without propitiation which is why I can’t see any way around an eternal hell.  Our debt cannot be paid in full without Christ’s imputed righteousness credited to our accounts.  If there were any other way to pay for sin then the blameless Jesus didn’t need to die on a cross.

I realize that’s perhaps a whole other can o’ worms but it is interesting how these doctrines intertwine.

Bill - 23 May 2008 11:47 AM

Greg, I’m tired of repeating this… You can’t mix your terms and definitions with the historical interpretation.  You attempt to equate the historical belief of Satan as the second goat and put your interpretations of the terms on what the second goat does.

You don’t have biblical support that the second goat represented Satan, so you rest your assertion on “historical belief” which comes from Jewish scholars who also denied that Christ was the Messiah. Christians see the Old Testament as pointing to and being fulfilled by Jesus. It is not a leap of faith to see Jesus represented by the second goat (removing the sins away from the camp), but it is certainly a leap of faith to pick a partial interpretation by a select group of Jewish scholars without also examining what they said about the first goat (i.e. that this goat did not represent Jesus). Your approach is extra-biblical and ignores the fulfillment of the OT types and shadows by Jesus. Jesus himself said that all Scripture pointed to him, so we would do well to listen (John 5:39-40).

Bill - 23 May 2008 11:47 AM

Your interpretation of the terms involved relate to what Jesus does for us.  Go back and reread the last few posts I wrote to Gabriel.  The Day of Atonement was a process of cleansing sin from the sanctuary.  This typifies, not the ongoing forgiveness of sin that took place during the year by various sin offerings, but the final cleansing and removal of sin from the sanctuary and camp itself.

The problem with your interpretation is that it makes Jesus death on the cross powerless to completely deal with the sin problem. Thus, when Jesus said “It is finished”, he did not really mean that the salvation of sinners was finished because this would occur at a future time when the polluted heavenly sanctuary could be cleaned by his blood and the sins of the world would be put on Satan to “bear them away” (as Leviticus says of the second goat - Leviticus 16:22). In your arguments we see a perfect demonstration of how an incomplete atonement results from a consistent application of Adventist theology.

Bill - 23 May 2008 11:47 AM

How many times do I have to say that Jesus pays for my sins alone.  There is no one else that pays for my sins.  Furthermore, Jesus paid at the cross and the transaction is complete as long as I remain a believer.  That SHOULD tell you there is something wrong with what you are suggesting.

I am sure you believe this, but what you don’t seem to see is that by giving Satan a role in bearing away sins from the camp, you have left the door open for him to participate in paying for your sins, a function that only belongs to Jesus.

Bill - 23 May 2008 11:47 AM

The type that is portrayed by the second goat is at THE END, Satan will pay for his own sins including sin he is responsible for as instigator.

This statement relies on what some Jewish scholars believe is symbolized in the second goat. You are quick to accept their view without using Scripture to tell us who the second goat is. The only biblical figure who can take away sins from the redeemed is Jesus. We don’t need to look outside the Bible to understand this.

Bill - 23 May 2008 11:47 AM

For example, Satan will pay a price at the end for his involvement with Adam and Eve’s sin.

No, Jesus already paid the price for their sin, assuming they are redeemed.

Bill - 23 May 2008 11:47 AM

EVERYONE was cursed as a result of this (Adam, Eve and Satan) Jesus paid for Adam and Eve at the cross, but Satan will get his due in the end.

Satan’s punishment is an entirely different thing than “paying” for sin, as payment implies satisfaction of God’s wrath. Jesus’ precious blood is the only thing that can do this.

Bill - 23 May 2008 11:47 AM

This should also tell us that Satan does have an instigator role in our sins and that God recognizes this.  The anti-type of the first goat and priest is Jesus entering into the heavenly sanctuary where He ministers on our behalf (we are still sinning), using the blood shed on the cross.  When His ministry is complete in the heavenly sanctuary, He returns and deals with the second goat.  THE END.

Again, your argument rests on an extra-biblical Jewish interpretation of who the second goat of Leviticus 16 represented. Comparing Scripture with Scripture, it should be obvious that only Jesus can both satisfy God’s wrath and remove sin from his people. What puzzles me is why anyone would want to overturn such a precious revelation of Jesus’ work on behalf of sinners.

Greg

Greg - 23 May 2008 12:34 PM

You don’t have biblical support that the second goat represented Satan, so you rest your assertion on “historical belief” which comes from Jewish scholars who also denied that Christ was the Messiah. Christians see the Old Testament as pointing to and being fulfilled by Jesus. It is not a leap of faith to see Jesus represented by the second goat (removing the sins away from the camp), but it is certainly a leap of faith to pick a partial interpretation by a select group of Jewish scholars without also examining what they said about the first goat (i.e. that this goat did not represent Jesus). Your approach is extra-biblical and ignores the fulfillment of the OT types and shadows by Jesus. Jesus himself said that all Scripture pointed to him, so we would do well to listen (John 5:39-40).

Of course the Jewish scholars denied that Jesus was the fulfillment of the messianic prophesies.  Christ was not Jesus last name but was a name given by the Jews to the Messiah.  We, of course, agree that Jesus was the Christ.  That is why this idea that the second goat represented Jesus didn’t come around till after Jesus.  Duh!  It has its earliest roots in the late first century or early second century.  As you have stated, the view that this goat represented Satan was the original view (historical).  What you are confusing Greg, is the historical Jews believed the first goat represented the messiah.  What they didn’t believe is that Jesus was the messiah.  To say that the Jews didn’t believe the first goat represented Jesus is very poor logic.  In any case that would be untrue because many Jews believed.  Paul, a Jew, believed the first goat represented Jesus and made that very clear in Hebrews.  IF Paul believed the second goat represented Jesus he did not mention it anywhere.  What Paul did say is that he held back nothing profitable from them (Acts 20:20).  You say this view has no Biblical support.  I think thats very funny and sad at the same time.  First of all ITS IN THE BIBLE.  Azazel has several possible interpretations.  All of them point to the same thing.  First of all is the believe that it is a devil or leader of rebellion.  Secondly, some believe it referred to a place in the wilderness.  The wilderness was held by the Israelites to be the habitation of devils.  What is lacking in any of these views is that it applied to the Messiah.  Do you believe the historical Jewish interpretation of Genesis and that you were created by a loving, all powerful, creator?  I absolutely believe that, are you going to criticize me for believing this interpretation as well?

Greg - 23 May 2008 12:34 PM

The problem with your interpretation is that it makes Jesus death on the cross powerless to completely deal with the sin problem. Thus, when Jesus said “It is finished”, he did not really mean that the salvation of sinners was finished because this would occur at a future time when the polluted heavenly sanctuary could be cleaned by his blood and the sins of the world would be put on Satan to “bear them away” (as Leviticus says of the second goat - Leviticus 16:22). In your arguments we see a perfect demonstration of how an incomplete atonement results from a consistent application of Adventist theology.

The problem with your interpretation is, it isn’t supported by the Bible.  You want to believe the sin problem is completely dealt with at the cross and deny Jesus present ministry on our (sinners) behalf.  The price for sin was paid at the cross and, those who believe, have assurance of forgiveness, but is the sin problem gone away?  Obviously not.  God is a master surgeon.  He is given the delicate task of performing a sin-dectomy on his people.  The problem is we love sin!  God uses circumstances, trials and blessings to lead us into right-doing.  To build our faith and trust in Him.  Slowly He removes sin and molds our characters closer and closer in line with His own.  This is a day by day, hour by hour process. 

As for what is finished at the cross, we need to keep in mind Revelation 10:7, “in the days of the sounding of the seventh angel, when he is about to sound, the mystery of God would be finished, as He declared to His servants the prophets”.  This seventh Angel, in Revelation 10, sounds like Jesus.  Finally, Revelation 22:11-12, (I believe both verses are spoken by Jesus), says: “He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous still; he who is holy, let him be holy still...My point is, though the price for sin was paid at the cross, Jesus continues to claim His blood on sinners behalf in His heavenly ministry.  If the sin problem was completely dealt with at the cross as you suggest, why are we continuing to sin?  Perhaps you are trying to say the same thing I am using different terminology…

Greg - 23 May 2008 12:34 PM

what you don’t seem to see is that by giving Satan a role in bearing away sins from the camp, you have left the door open for him to participate in paying for your sins, a function that only belongs to Jesus.

I can see this is another point of confusion for you Greg.  I can see you have a different interpretation than I have of what it means to “pay” for sins.  You seem to interpret this as something that is done on someone else behalf.  That is one way, but there is another interpretation.  I can pay for something myself.  When I say Satan “pays” for his own sins, everyone seems to interpret this as “paying” for my sins.  My interpretation and the SDA interpretation is that the sins placed on this goat’s head are his own sins that he is responsible for as instigator and he will be punished for his part.  Please, stop mixing my part of sin into this explanation.  My part is dealt with by Jesus.  Be careful in what you try to say here Greg, Satan HAS a responsibility for what has happened in this world and we should not feel any need to make excuses for him because we don’t like what is implied by this goat.

Greg - 23 May 2008 12:34 PM

This statement relies on what some Jewish scholars believe is symbolized in the second goat. You are quick to accept their view without using Scripture to tell us who the second goat is. The only biblical figure who can take away sins from the redeemed is Jesus. We don’t need to look outside the Bible to understand this.

Yes, Jesus takes away my sin.  This goat was removed from the camp, it did not go on its own free will… If Paul thought the Jewish interpretation of this goat was incorrect, he would have said something.  No reference is made to this goat in all of the Bible as relating to Jesus or the Messiah.  It is clear from the term Azazel that it did relate to the devil or demons.  Then you say I don’t have Biblical support when it is your interpretation that lacks any Biblical support.  Show me one text Greg where it says that this goat is a type of Christ.  The ONLY way you will do this is to take a text out of context an apply it to this one.  Jesus was always symbolized by the sacrifice animal and never this one.

Greg - 23 May 2008 12:34 PM

Bill - 23 May 2008 11:47 AM

For example, Satan will pay a price at the end for his involvement with Adam and Eve’s sin.

No, Jesus already paid the price for their sin, assuming they are redeemed.

Jesus paid the price for Satan’s sin as instigator???  Stop trying to twist what I am saying Greg, unless you believe that Jesus has paid for Satan’s sins and Satan is free from the wraith of God.  Read what I said again, because what you implied I said, was totally different.

Greg - 23 May 2008 12:34 PM

Bill - 23 May 2008 11:47 AM

EVERYONE was cursed as a result of this (Adam, Eve and Satan) Jesus paid for Adam and Eve at the cross, but Satan will get his due in the end.

Satan’s punishment is an entirely different thing than “paying” for sin, as payment implies satisfaction of God’s wrath. Jesus’ precious blood is the only thing that can do this.

Satan will stand before God’s wraith without a substitute and will pay for his sins (be destroyed).  If you are not clear what I mean by “pay”, feel free to ask for clarification… If you don’t think Satan will pay in the end, read Ezekiel 28:11-19, “Therefore I brought fire from your midst ... you have become a horror, and shall be no more forever.”

Greg - 23 May 2008 12:34 PM

Bill - 23 May 2008 11:47 AM

This should also tell us that Satan does have an instigator role in our sins and that God recognizes this.  The anti-type of the first goat and priest is Jesus entering into the heavenly sanctuary where He ministers on our behalf (we are still sinning), using the blood shed on the cross.  When His ministry is complete in the heavenly sanctuary, He returns and deals with the second goat.  THE END.

Again, your argument rests on an extra-biblical Jewish interpretation of who the second goat of Leviticus 16 represented. Comparing Scripture with Scripture, it should be obvious that only Jesus can both satisfy God’s wrath and remove sin from his people. What puzzles me is why anyone would want to overturn such a precious revelation of Jesus’ work on behalf of sinners.

Again, no it doesn’t.  Your interpretation lacks Biblical support, but you would rather accuse me of what you are lacking.

Greg, its sad to me that you would think I want to overturn or take away from anything that Jesus has done for me.  Jesus is my Savior and Redeemer.  Without Him I am completely and totally lost and without hope.  Far from being the case, I think the historical (and Biblical) interpretation gives us a more complete insight into God’s work in the ultimate removal of sin from the universe.
So much of the historical interpretation fits with the reality portrayed by the types.  YOU are so focused on trying to convince me that your interpretation is correct that you will not acknowledge the least validity to any opposing view to yours.  For example, I point out that even Sproul believed that the second goat was not part of the sacrifice and you finally stop arguing that point, but never acknowledge its significance.  Its like your desperate to be right even though I have repeated said that both roads lead to the same end.  You won’t even acknowledge that point.  We both believe Jesus “paid” the price for my sin.  We both believe Satan will “get his due” in the end.  Why keep trying to place something on the historical interpretation that is not there?  If you want to believe this goat represents Jesus and miss what can be learned by the historical view, that is fine!  I can enjoy a good discussion and believe it helps to understand the pro’s and con’s of your belief so you can make an informed decision on issues that matter.  However, there has been nothing presented to me on this thread that adds to or takes away from my present understanding of the gospel.  Yet you seem bent on accusing me of many things that are abhorant to me and insisting that I believe it or that my church believes it.

I have reached my end on this subject.  There has been nothing presented here that would give me the slightest reason to change what I believe on this subject.  I have come to a much better understanding of why we believe what we as SDA’s believe and I am fully convinced it is correct and Biblical.

Thank you, Gabriel, for your discussion.  It has been a great learning experience for me.

Aaron:
I wasn’t saying that you were saying Satan appeases the wrath of God on our behalf.

Thank you for that Aaron.  Its nice to know someone correctly interpreted what I said.

Aaron:
But even for himself, how can Satan possibly propitiate (or appease/satisfy) his own sin by being annihilated?  At what point can God show mercy by putting an end to Satan’s suffering in hell (or ours for that matter) and on what basis is God even able to extend this mercy without satisfactory payment and still be divinely and perfectly just?  God’s holy wrath against sin cannot be appeased by anybody other than Christ which is why it had to be a perfect sacrifice because God is holy.  God cannot show mercy against sin without propitiation which is why I can’t see any way around an eternal hell.  Our debt cannot be paid in full without Christ’s imputed righteousness credited to our accounts.  If there were any other way to pay for sin then the blameless Jesus didn’t need to die on a cross.

I realize that’s perhaps a whole other can o’ worms but it is interesting how these doctrines intertwine.

My goodness!  THAT IS a whole different can o’ worms… and it is interesting how these doctrines intertwine.  God truly is the guide and inspiration of scripture, else it would be a confusing mess!  Just look at this thread! 

I think I understand what you are saying and can see why it is leading you to the doctrine of eternal hell.  For example, without Christ, how can God’s wraith ever be appeased, even against sinners?  From my perspective, we differ on just what God’s justice is.  I like to think of it this way… God created me in His image according to His likeness.  There are two different Hebrew words involved and carries the idea that we have God’s image outwardly and inwardly.  God gave me a sense of justice.  I realize this varies from person to person, but I see no justice in the eternal punishment of sinners for whatever period of life God has given them.  Fortunately, there is much Biblical support to the idea that God destroys sinners, completely, in the end.  For example “the soul who sins shall die” Ezekiel 18:4,20.

If you are led to believe in eternal hell, you need to consider how hell is going to fit in with heaven.  Would you expect me to have any joy in heaven knowing that my loved ones (possibly my mother and brother, in my case) are screaming in hell.  That is a terrible concept to me… and, I believe, a incorrect rendering of God’s justice AND mercy.

Anyway, whatever you chose to believe regarding hell, we can certainly both agree that we don’t want to be there.   So be ready and watch for we don’t know the day or hour when our Master returns.

God bless.

Bill - 24 May 2008 08:10 PM

Its like your desperate to be right even though I have repeated said that both roads lead to the same end.  You won’t even acknowledge that point.  We both believe Jesus “paid” the price for my sin.  We both believe Satan will “get his due” in the end. .

No Bill, the roads don’t lead to the same end. We don’t believe that Satan will “get his due” in the end in the same way, otherwise we will not have this disputation, and until this point you ignored completely this fact. You misrepresent our position on “Satan getting his due”.

You include in Satan’s due a part of the punishment our sins deserve, which we don’t. That’s the point where your view directly affects the gospel in which you believe, because we assume full responsibility for our sins, Satan, even as a tempter, is not responsible in the slightest way for our sins. He will get punished for his temptations, for instigating people to sin, but these are his sins, separate and distinct from our sins. If we make Satan at least partially responsible for our sins, we adopt Eve’s self-justifying, self-righteous excuse ““The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” (Genesis 3:13). This is the ever-present excuse “The Devil made me do it” and the essence of self-righteousness.

This is why we believe that when the Bible describes the scapegoat carrying our sins, these sins do not mean his part of responsibility for our sins, Jesus carrying our responsibility for our sins.

Bill - 24 May 2008 08:10 PM

Please, stop mixing my part of sin into this explanation.  My part is dealt with by Jesus.

Here is the other face of the coin. Since Satan pays partially for our sins, Jesus’ sacrifice is also paying partially for our sins, enduring only a part of God’s wrath which our sins deserve. Since Jesus did not endure the entire punishment our sins deserves, the expiation part, the carrying away of our sins is not performed by him, but by Satan. And this changes the entire understanding of the gospel, since we must wait for Satan’s punishment to take place before we are free from our sins. But where is the proof in the Bible that our sins had not received the entire punishment which THEY deserve? The distinction made between Jesus suffering the punishment which only us deserve and the entire punishment which our sins deserve has no support in the Bible, the only possible place being in this symbolic ceremony of the scapegoat.  SDAs base their conclusions on this subject entirely on the interpretation of this symbolic ceremony, without any endorsement of clear-cut statements from other parts of the Bible. And it is an interpretation which needs to read “our sins” as being “Satan’s part in our sins”, or “Satan’s sins which are still ours”.

Bill - 24 May 2008 08:10 PM

My point is, though the price for sin was paid at the cross, Jesus continues to claim His blood on sinners behalf in His heavenly ministry.  If the sin problem was completely dealt with at the cross as you suggest, why are we continuing to sin?  Perhaps you are trying to say the same thing I am using different terminology…

The problem of sin is resolved in the future day of the Lord, at the second coming, and with this truth all parts agree. But in a true sense, the sin problem was for the believers completely dealt with at the cross, because at the cross the final judgment, the eschatological day of the Lord when all sinners will get their due, already happened. Jesus brought the end time judgment in the present and brought the final days on the earth (Hebrews 1:2), the Day of Atonement was already fulfilled. The believers are already are in the heavenly places (Ephesians 2:6), they already passed from death to life, and are in the possession of eternal life, nothing could change this. 

He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. Colossians 1:13-14

We already live in the future kingdom, even if we are in our mortal bodies. Sure, we still sin, but Jesus continual intercessory ministry makes impossible any future reversal of the present verdict of acquittal, justification.

Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. Hebrews 7:25
]Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died- more than that, who was raised- who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Romans 8:34

We don’t deny the present intercessory ministry of Jesus, instead we see in it the seal of our current state of justification and the guarantee that we will never meet any of our sins in the judgment due to Jesus continual application of his blood to our sinful life. This intercession does not mean a cycle o condemnation-justification, with multiple justifications, but rather a one-time event, in contrast with sanctification, which is a continual process.

For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. Hebrews 10:14

Hebrews is full of expressions which shows the “once for all” effect of Christ’s work. We are instantaneously “perfected for all time” while at the same time are in a life-long process of “being sanctified”. But our sanctification is not a denial of our once for all position of being justified before God and the fact that our sin problem is resolved in the sense that we will never have to meet those sins again, our sins no longer have power to condemn us. One of the new covenant’s blessings is that God no longer remembers our sins.

He does not deal with us according to our sins,
nor repay us according to our iniquities.
For as high as the heavens are above the earth,
so great is his steadfast love toward those who fear him;
as far as the east is from the west,
so far does he remove our transgressions from us. Psalms 103:10-12

In this Psalm the blessings of justifications are presented in the image of removal of our transgressions “as far as the east is from the west.” Adventists affirm justification, but placing the removal of sins on Satan’s shoulders at best brings confusion on the meaning of justification, beside the problem of the shared responsibility in sin

Gabriel

Gabriel:
You include in Satan’s due a part of the punishment our sins deserve, which we don’t. That’s the point where your view directly affects the gospel in which you believe, because we assume full responsibility for our sins, Satan, even as a tempter, is not responsible in the slightest way for our sins. He will get punished for his temptations, for instigating people to sin, but these are his sins, separate and distinct from our sins.

I was not trying to ignore you Gabriel, but I think we are still using different words to describe the same meaning.  I am not saying Satan is responsible for my part in sin, but that he is responsible for his part in tempting me to sin.  What is so sad here is that people assume what I mean and pronounce judgment on me as anti-gospel before asking for clarification.  Why do you also assume the worst every time?  Didn’t you read what Aaron said? “I wasn’t saying that you were saying Satan appeases the wrath of God on our behalf.” Aaron could understand what I was saying on this subject.  I am definitely not saying that Satan appeases God’s wraith on my behalf in any way.

Gabriel:
Here is the other face of the coin. Since Satan pays partially for our sins, Jesus’ sacrifice is also paying partially for our sins, enduring only a part of God’s wrath which our sins deserve. Since Jesus did not endure the entire punishment our sins deserves, the expiation part, the carrying away of our sins is not performed by him, but by Satan. And this changes the entire understanding of the gospel, since we must wait for Satan’s punishment to take place before we are free from our sins.

Here you start out with a total wrong assumption.  “Since Satan pays partially for our sins”.

Gabriel:
This does not change the fact that the sin problem was completely dealt with at the cross, because at the cross, the final judgment, the eschatological day of the Lord when all sinners will get their due, already happened. Jesus brought the end time judgment into the present and brought the final days on the earth. For those who believe in him, the problem of sin is already resolved. They already are seated in the heavenly places (Ephesians 2:6), they have already passed from death to life (John 5:24), and nothing can change this.

Here you get into something that is not portrayed by the typology of the sanctuary.  We have already had a discussion on predestination.  You are welcome to believe this as even this road leads to the same result.  Believe in Jesus, be faithful in doing good and be ready at all times.

I appreciate your insights and have enjoyed this discussion Gabriel.  Please stop trying to drag me back.  If you are not clear on something in particular I said, feel free to ask for clarification, otherwise, I don’t want to continue arguing (for what I perceive as) the sake of arguing.  I’m sure we’ll meet again, but let it be another topic.  Thanks…

Bill - 25 May 2008 06:33 AM

I am not saying Satan is responsible for my part in sin, but that he is responsible for his part in tempting me to sin.

Bill

No controversy with you at this point. I’m not accusing you of making Satan pay for my responsibility for my sins, or “my part”, as you put it. What troubles me is that I explained my point in clear terms and you still accuse me of misconstruing your position, as you accuse also Greg.  We are not attacking a straw man here. I already made clear that I don’t think you made Satan pay for my part of responsibility, but for his part of responsibility in my sins. I said in my previous post that I disagree with your view in the following posts

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 25 May 2008 03:53 AM

This is why we believe that when the Bible describes the scapegoat carrying our sins, these sins do not mean his part of responsibility for our sins, Jesus carrying our responsibility for our sins. 

That was the conclusion of my argument, in which I said that “I believe that when the Bible describes the scapegoat carrying our sins, these sins do not mean” and what follows is your understanding, describing it in terms which made a distinction between “his [Satan] part of responsibility” and “our responsibility”. I understood very well your position, which you put below,

Bill - 25 May 2008 06:33 AM

I am not saying Satan is responsible for my part in sin, but that he is responsible for his part in tempting me to sin.

Here is the problem, that the full responsibility for sin is not assumed by the SDA view.

You said:

Bill - 25 May 2008 06:33 AM

Here you start out with a total wrong assumption.  “Since Satan pays partially for our sins”.

Are not our sins put on the back of Satan? Is he not carrying our sins? This clearly shows that in your understanding Satan pays partially for our sins, precisely for his part, not our part. I’m stating this again, clearly: in your view he’s suffering for his (not our) part in, careful here, MY SINS.

And if Satan is paying the penalty for his part in my sins, it results that Jesus is paying the penalty for my part in my sins. The entire penalty for my sins is not entirely paid by Jesus, he had paid only for my part, my responsibility in my sins. The rest of the penalty is paid by Satan. That Jesus has not paid fully and entirely for my sins has no support in the Bible, and is as anti-gospel as is the self-justification concept of partial responsibility.

These are the issues at stake here, the self-justifying view of sharing responsibility with somebody else (Satan) in sin, and also the problematic aspect of making Jesus and Satan pay for my sins, either of them partially (Jesus for my part, Satan for his part).

Gabriel

Gabriel:
These are the issues at stake here, the self-justifying view of sharing responsibility with somebody else (Satan) in sin, and also the problematic aspect of making Jesus and Satan pay for my sins, either of them partially (Jesus for my part, Satan for his part).

Thank you for clarifying that Gabriel.  What I hear you saying is that Jesus paid for Satan’s role in tempting me to sin as well as my role.  If you want to believe that, thats ok.  If this is what you are saying, I think you let Satan off way too easy and doesn’t make any common sense to me, but thats why this is a free country.

Bill - 25 May 2008 10:40 AM

Gabriel:
These are the issues at stake here, the self-justifying view of sharing responsibility with somebody else (Satan) in sin, and also the problematic aspect of making Jesus and Satan pay for my sins, either of them partially (Jesus for my part, Satan for his part).

Thank you for clarifying that Gabriel.  What I hear you saying is that Jesus paid for Satan’s role in tempting me to sin as well as my role.  If you want to believe that, thats ok.  If this is what you are saying, I think you let Satan off way too easy and doesn’t make any common sense to me, but thats why this is a free country.

Bill, wash your ears. You know that I believe Satan will be punished for his temptations, and Jesus has nothing to do with Satan’s punishment.  Don’t try to blame me for your erroneous views that his temptations are partially responsible for our sins, because they are not. If you’re right, Eve was also right when she put the blame partially on the serpent for her sin. 

Your last post is a tacit admission that you believe Jesus had not suffered the full penalty our sins deserve. That’s a different gospel, and I doubt that you will classify as an evangelical after your views are seen for what they truly are. 

Gabriel

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 25 May 2008 11:29 AM

Bill - 25 May 2008 10:40 AM

Gabriel:
These are the issues at stake here, the self-justifying view of sharing responsibility with somebody else (Satan) in sin, and also the problematic aspect of making Jesus and Satan pay for my sins, either of them partially (Jesus for my part, Satan for his part).

Thank you for clarifying that Gabriel.  What I hear you saying is that Jesus paid for Satan’s role in tempting me to sin as well as my role.  If you want to believe that, thats ok.  If this is what you are saying, I think you let Satan off way too easy and doesn’t make any common sense to me, but thats why this is a free country.

Bill, wash your ears. You know that I believe Satan will be punished for his temptations, and Jesus has nothing to do with Satan’s punishment.  Don’t try to blame me for your erroneous views that his temptations are partially responsible for our sins, because they are not. If you’re right, Eve was also right when she put the blame partially on the serpent for her sin. 

Your last post is a tacit admission that you believe Jesus had not suffered the full penalty our sins deserve. That’s a different gospel, and I doubt that you will classify as an evangelical after your views are seen for what they truly are. 

Gabriel

Just washed my ears, thanks for the advice… Now that I think I can hear you better, your now saying that Jesus has nothing to do with Satan’s punishment and that Satan will be punished for his temptations, but Satan’s temptations have nothing to do with our sins?