Posted anonymously by: Ane

guibox

You are still missing my point as well! But hey we both gave it our best shots no one can accuse us of not trying! Thanks for dialoguing with me anyway.

Ane

glennspring said

I hope I’m not belaboring the point, but I wonder what the reason was for two goats on the Day of Atonement? One to be sacrificed and the other to be led away. Why not just one?

I have an opinion on the matter, but I don’t believe the point can be proven.  Many parts of the sacrificial system don’t seem to have any particular prophetic meaning for us today, for instance why the fat and kidneys were burned on the altar and other parts were not. Therefore, I believe the Day of Atonement would have been a valid metaphor for the Christ event if only one goat had been used, however by using two goats the Christ event can be more completely portrayed.

The original idea of sacrifices found in many cultures, including the one from which the Israelites came from, is to offer the God’s something which they find pleasing to try to win their favor.  In other words, the sacrifices were similar to a subject giving his king a present hoping the king is happy with the gift and will regard the subject with favor.  The Israelites clearly had some of the same mentality, for instance the Bible states numerous times that the offerings were a pleasant aroma to God.  The sacrificial system set up at Sinai retains much of this cultural overlay but modifies the sacrifices sufficiently to point forward to the Christ event. 

The idea of vicarious death is brought into the sacrifices by the dedication of the firstborn of men and animals which had to either be killed or redeemed with the life of another sacrifice.  This vicarious death is not directly associated with the sin offerings however so don’t point directly to the atonement on the cross. 

With the usual sin offerings, it would be easy to understand the offerings in the traditional sense in which the person is offering a gift to God to win His favor, and to miss the vicarious nature of the atonement.  The symbology of the vicarious atonement is present in the regular sacrifices since the sinner did confess his sins over the animal, but it is not as graphically demonstrated as in the case of the scapegoat, where the vicarious nature of the sacrifice is so obvious it can not be missed.  In the scapegoat, the idea that one being, the goat, could carry the sins and guilt in place of the sinner and thus remove the sinners guilt is unmistakable.  So I’d say the two goats are a matter of emphasis where both were valid symbols of the Christ event, but emphasized different aspects of His atonement.

Glennspring didn’t address this question to me, but I would like to comment.

Assuming Jesus fulfilled the types of both goats, then, and fulfilled the Day of Atonement sacrificial ritual in full at Calvary, (1) what explains Jesus’s continued sanctuarial role as High Priest today in Heaven as depicted in Hebrews, if the Atonement process and the sacrificial/priestly system has been completed, and (2) how do we understand the removal of sin via the scapegoat into the wilderness as sin remains in the earth?

In other words, if Jesus fulfilled all of those types at Calvary, what remains? Why are we still here?

Whatever your actual intention, your question could be interpreted to support a belief that the atonement has not been completed and that there is still something missing to rid us of sins.  Hebrews has addressed this issue very nicely. 

Heb 10:11-14
11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13 Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

NIV
The Adventist position, as I understand it, is that sin is still a problem and Jesus is still “standing and performing His religious duties again and again” in exactly the way the priests in the earthly sanctuary did and completely contrary to this passage in Hebrews.  Fortunately Adventists haven’t gone so far as to postulate that Jesus has to die many times, but that is where the lucky streak ends since they then turn around and claim that Jesus must be continually applying the sacrifice again and again each time someone sins and then confesses the sin.  Furthermore, since they can’t kill Jesus off multiple times, and since Jesus’ death obviously hasn’t solved the sin problem, they have to enlist Satan to serve as the final sin bearer whose death completes the atonement and finally rids the universe of sin.  By contrast, Hebrews indicates that the sin problem has already been taken care of, the atonement has been completed and that Jesus is sitting at the Father’s right side until His enemies are His footstool. 

Ane said to me

I’m perplexed that you recognize several areas where EGW’s teachings contradict Scripture ... but yet you don’t think she is a false prophet. Can you share examples of “true” Bible prophets ever contradicting Scripture?

I’m not saying she is a true prophet in the sense that I consider her doctrinally authoritative or as especially accurate.  To the extent that she tried to use her gift to assume doctrinal authority or to in any way control other people, I’d agree she was a false prophet.  She certainly didn’t understand the gospel and was an extreme legalist.  That being said, there is every indication that she was a sincere Christian woman with severe limitations in her theology.  From my understanding of the gospel, despite her many sins she is probably a saved woman, and therefore doesn’t qualify as a false prophet in the same sense as Muhammad who denied the divinity of Christ, spewed hatred and murder, rejected the vicarious atonement and taught salvation by works.  Although it may just be a matter of terminology, I hesitate to call a saved Child of Christ a “false prophet” and to place her in the same category with a man whose works and writings give every indication of a Satanic origin.

Ane said

The teaching that the scapegoat represents Satan bumps Christ from the picture and gives Satan a significant role in the atonement process.

The teaching about the Holy Spirit/Intercessor being withdrawn during the Time of Trouble also blatantly contradicts Scripture. And removes both Christ and the Holy Spirit from a significant role we will need to rely on heavily during persecution.

If I might be so bold as to suggest this, wouldn’t any teaching that bumps Christ or the Holy Spirit from the picture be a teaching against Christ? Or in other words anti-Christ?

I agree with everything you have said.  The Adventist theology in these areas is absolutely terrible and she certainly is responsible for much of it.  I’d stop short of calling her anti-Christ however since she did have faith in Jesus and Him cricified as her Savior.  I’m not sure she was able to connect the dots and to actually follow her theology to it’s logical conclusions.

This was not written to me but it raises some interesting points so I’d like to comment.  Guibox wrote

Ane wrote:
”The teaching that the scapegoat represents Satan bumps Christ from the picture and gives Satan a significant role in the atonement process.”

I disagree because one can look at both goats not as complete atonement but simply their role in sin. If atonement was done at the cross, then in the sanctuary service, the atonement stops with the sacrificed goat, symbolizing Christ, the ‘spotless lamb’. He cannot be two goats at the same time. For both aspects of the goats to truly be symbolic and type meeting anti-type, you should technically have the sacrifical goat have all the sins placed on it, led out into the wilderness and then be sacrificed. This truly would represent what Christ did with sin.

However, we don’t have that.

We have TWO goats.

The first is sacrificed for the sins (Does this not truly represent Christ?) Atonment is completed.

What of the OTHER goat? What part does sin play now? Obviously not in vicarious atonement for it was already done.

I see nothing wrong with the concept that Satan will suffer for all that he has wrought on the earth. The bible is full of ‘reaping what you sow’ and that those who ‘lead the little ones astray’ or make ‘sons of hell’ will be punished severely and held responsible.

Why would this not apply to Satan, the great and ultimate cause of sin, simply by default?

You say Jesus cannot “be two goats at the same time.” I don’t understand why you think that.  There were many sacrifices which all represented Jesus, lambs, bulls, goats, doves, even flour, so why can’t Jesus be two goats at the same time?  You do believe Jesus was both the sacrifice and the priest at the same time don’t you?

You also said, “What of the OTHER goat? What part does sin play now? Obviously not in vicarious atonement for it was already done.”
Once again I don’t understand where you arrive at that conclusion.  How do you explain this passage?

Lev 16:10
10 But the goat chosen by lot as the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the LORD to be used for making atonement by sending it into the desert as a scapegoat.
NIV

As for the vicarious nature of it’s atonement, I can’t understand the Adventist position since I have yet to see a goat which can either sin or can be responsible for my sins.  The text states that the goat was carrying the people’s sins.

Lev 16:20-22
20 “When Aaron has finished making atonement for the Most Holy Place, the Tent of Meeting and the altar, he shall bring forward the live goat. 21 He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites--all their sins--and put them on the goat’s head. He shall send the goat away into the desert in the care of a man appointed for the task. 22 The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a solitary place; and the man shall release it in the desert.
NIV

You also said, “I see nothing wrong with the concept that Satan will suffer for all that he has wrought on the earth. The bible is full of ‘reaping what you sow’ and that those who ‘lead the little ones astray’ or make ‘sons of hell’ will be punished severely and held responsible.”

I appreciate those Adventists who try to interpret the scapegoat this way, although from my perspective they can only arrive at that conclusion by ignoring what EGW actually said.  I’m addressing EGW’s position in my discussion and the many Adventists who embrace Satan as their final sin bearer.  From that perspective, whether Satan suffers for “all that he has wrought” is completely irrelevant.  The question is not whether Satan will suffer for his own sins, that is obviously “yes,” rather the issue is whether Satan will carry the sins for the saved which they have already confessed. In this, Mrs. White agrees with the Bible that it was the people’s sins which the scapegoat was carrying not it’s own sins. She also is clear that Satan bears their punishment.

Posted anonymously by: Ane

Thanks New Mexico!

That helped clarify your stance. I actually agree with you. I do not judge EGW’s salvation either. I have no idea what her true motives were. It does appear her heart was in bringing people to Christ. I do not think our salvation is be based on whether or not we arrive at 100% accuracy in our theology. We strive to become as accurate as possible because we are commissioned to go out and share the Gospel.

I think EGW probably had “other issues” going on that caused these lapses in her spiritual judgment that truly may have been out of her control ... I just don’t know. As evidenced by her writings she very much appears to be a very conflicted soul whose spiritual journey was evolving just like mine ... and were she to be considered an “inspired” writer like anyone else on the shelves of Christian bookstores I’d be cool with that. But the SDA church has elevated her to a prophet status and given her this authority whether she ever wanted it or not, and she does not pass the tests for this sort of status rating.

And I did not mean to state that she is THE anti-Christ although many of her teachings that are still perpetuated are clearly anti-Christ and I do judge the denomination for perpetuating most of those teachings. 

I really appreciate all your insight on the scapegoat topic.

Glennspring,

here is something a friend shared with me last night regarding the scapegoat that may help bring more clarity to you on why 2 goats were necessary:

There is an eschatological element here that points to the time when sin will be completely and forever removed. However, there is a sense in which our sins our removed from us right now in a forensic sense. In God’s eyes our sins have been removed from us as far as the east is from the west, right now! In a practical sense we still fall and still sin, but in a judicial sense we have already been declared not guilty by reason of Christ’s righteousness and His sacrifice. Jesus became the scapegoat for us. On the cross He became sin in our place, removing the sin from us and placing it upon himself. Paul alludes to this concept of Christ as the scapegoat in this passage:

2 Corinthians 5:21 (NASB)
He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Jesus has already fulfilled His role of scapegoat in one sense, but I would agree that there is still an ultimate eschatological fulfillment as well.

New Mexico,

Thank you for your rational and logical response. It does make sense and you have made some good points. Apparently there were a few texts that I managed to overlook.

What I disagree with are those that that say that by saying that the scapegoat is Satan that SDAs are giving Satan a co-existing role in our salvation or trying to mak Christ Satan. You’d think we were a satanic cult the way some formers attribute ‘shady dealings’ to some of our doctrines.

At the very least we have a different perspective looking at a different aspect of eschaetological fulfillment and finality of the salvation process and not the atonement at the cross. 

Posted anonymously by: Ane

guibox

None of us have perfect theology. But we are commissioned to spread the Gospel and we need to be as accurate as we can humanly possibly be.

When a teaching bumps Christ from the picture, and especially when that teaching gives Satan the significance instead it is at the very least anti-Christ. When we become aware of such teachings we need to throw a fit like Jesus did in the temple and rebel against it!

Ane

Posted anonymously by: dwayne

For those that are of the persuasion that “satan plays a role in our salavtion” as one certain sda elder taught in a sabbath school class… here’s the challenge!

How many sin bearers does it take to remove the sins of sda?

1) Jesus Christ
2) satan
3) Jesus Christ and satan
4) None of the above

Please quote Bible chapter and verse to corroborate your answer.

Posted anonymously by: dwayne

FYI: When confronted re his provocative statement, the above sda elder/ss teacher challenged those who disagreed to disprove his statement. At least three people, including two sda theology majors eagerly accepted but then the elder/teacher conveniently withdrew when the demand was made to “use the Bible and the Bible only”.

Posted anonymously by: Bobj

Hi Freinds

Yesterday I did a google search on “satan scapegoat.” I am a former Adventist, but grew up assuming that the scapegoat was satan. 

Briefly, the papers available on google raised a couple interesting points.  Apparently ancient Jewish writers referred to a-z-z-l as one who spread sin through the earth--the Book of Enoch is mentioned.  One writer, uncomfortable with the concept of satan having a role in the atonement, wrote that he thought perhaps the scapegoat was simply a messenger to the dark side (my paraphrase of his point).  I have some questions about this, and need to do further study.  1 Peter 3:19 mentions Christ preaching to the spirits in prison.  Could this be what this writer was referring to? 

There are very good texts in the new testament that use almost the exact terms as are used to describe the scape goat, and these terms are referring to Christ as our sin bearer and as removing our sins from us.  I think a strong case can be made that Christ is represented by the scapegoat as well as the Lord’s goat. 

I have to work now, but will try to share a bit more about what I’m reading next week.  Briefly, I do not think satan plays a role in our salvation, but the Bible clearly refers to him (the dragon, and other terms, etc). 

I couldn’t find any references on google to the church of satan also believing that satan is the scapegoat, although someone mentioned that they do believe that. 

Bob

Thanks Bob for doing the research.

Categorically it can be said that Satan has no role in our salvation.

Over on FAF, one poster was throwing a fit with multiple exclamation marks and capital letters proclaiming Adventism to be worse than a Satan worshipping cult because of the scapegoat doctrine.

This doctrine was examined very carefully by Walter Martin and Anthony Hoekema, and they both acknowledged that the SDA view was bad theology, but not damning in itself with regard to Adventism’s view of the atonement.

Stan

Thanks, New Mexico for another well-reasoned, and scriptural, explanation of the scapegoat and the various sacrifices in the OT system.

I want to touch on the matter of the continued atonement.

[quote author="New Mexico"] The Adventist position, as I understand it, is that sin is still a problem and Jesus is still “standing and performing His religious duties again and again” in exactly the way the priests in the earthly sanctuary did and completely contrary to this passage in Hebrews. Fortunately Adventists haven’t gone so far as to postulate that Jesus has to die many times, but that is where the lucky streak ends since they then turn around and claim that Jesus must be continually applying the sacrifice again and again each time someone sins and then confesses the sin. Furthermore, since they can’t kill Jesus off multiple times, and since Jesus’ death obviously hasn’t solved the sin problem, they have to enlist Satan to serve as the final sin bearer whose death completes the atonement and finally rids the universe of sin. By contrast, Hebrews indicates that the sin problem has already been taken care of, the atonement has been completed and that Jesus is sitting at the Father’s right side until His enemies are His footstool.

My understanding of a continued atonement relates to Hebrews 7:25 which asserts that Jesus ever lives to make intercession for us.  That is, Jesus is in heaven as our intercessor, accepting our requests for forgiveness and cleansing from sin (1 John 1:9).  Whether that should be characterized as performing the same religious duty over and over again, I don’t know.  But I don’t read Paul’s statement in Hebrews about Jesus sitting at the right hand of the Father as being opposed to Jesus continuing to have a ministry on our behalf.  Hebrews 7:25 indicates He does, as do many other passages related to our praying and confessing our sins, which imply that Jesus is still active on our behalf.

The SDA view is that this intercession will end when, or just before, Christ returns at the second coming.

How do you understand Hebrews 7:25 and related passages, like 1 John 1:9, that deal with Christ’s continued role in the forgiveness of sins?  And if Christ is interceding for us before the Father, does this intercession continue throughout eternity or does it end at some point? 

[quote author="Ane"] In God’s eyes our sins have been removed from us as far as the east is from the west, right now! In a practical sense we still fall and still sin, but in a judicial sense we have already been declared not guilty by reason of Christ’s righteousness and His sacrifice. Jesus became the scapegoat for us.

I agree in so far as we have confessed our sins and turned away from them. 

You say that “in a practical sense we still fall and still sin, but in a judicial sense we have already been declared not guilty by reasons of Christ’s righteousness and His sacrifice”.  But do we still need to confess and repent of these sins?  Do our confessions and prayers for forgiveness serve any real function, then, if the judicial declaration of our salvation has already been rendered?

Posted anonymously by: Ane

glennspring

Here is my understanding of the process, but just know I’m truly still sorting all this out myself, so I stand to be corrected.

First lets define atonement:

Atone: make amends for, make reparation for, make restitution for, make up for, compensate for, pay for, recompense for, expiate, redress, make good, offset; do penance for.

The atonement process PAID THE PRICE for sin. It was the restitution God required to make things right with Him again. The moment man fell man was no longer AT ONE with God. [Atone = At-one] After Jesus paid the price for the fall of man that made man AT ONE with God again.

Christ is not still atoning for sin. He is now interceding for us; but, in a different way than how the high priest interceded for Israel. Apart from being IN CHRIST, we are not AT ONE with God. We stand before a just and Holy God clothed only in our own filthy rags. If we are in Christ, we are AT ONE with God; and God can’t see our filthy rags. When we are in Christ, we stand before God covered by Christ’s perfect substitutionary life, death, and resurrection. Based on Christ’s merits alone, those who are in Him are declared justified or not guilty. As our substitutionary mediator, it is Christ who is judged in our place and we receive the UNDESERVED benefits of His perfection because we are in Him. 

Yes. I think we do have to continually confess our sins and repent of them. But that is not part of the atonement process. Atonement is complete because it was the price that was paid. Confession and repentance is how we personally can tell if we are born again. Our own sin offends us. We feel sorrow over it. Confession, prayer and forgiveness do still serve as necessary function. Prayer is how we commune with God. Confession is how we display our sorrow. Forgiveness relieves us of the need to constantly beat ourselves or others up. Forgiveness wipes our slate clean and assures us our sin has been forgotten and will not be held against us.

Someone correct me if I’m wrong ... but I don’t think atonement and forgiveness are the same thing. Atonement was the price that was paid, the blood that was shed, the sacrifice Christ made. The restitution to absolve God’s wrath.

The reason I say this is because in the day of atonement ritual there were 2 goats. The sacrificed goat atoned for sin, he paid the price by the sacrifice of his life. Then the scapegoat removed the sin. But the sin wasn’t confessed until after the 1st goat was already sacrificed. So the order was sacrifice, confession, removal. Does this mean sin was not forgiven at the cross, it still has to be confessed to be forgiven? Atonement just opened the door to cover sin by paying restitution to God so forgiveness could be offered for confessed sin?

Posted anonymously by: Ane

glennspring

One other thing you asked ... if Christ is interceding for us before the Father, does this intercession continue throughout eternity or does it end at some point?

It appears to me that the answer is always ...

... He ALWAYS lives to make intercession ... –Hebrews 7:22-25 

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying ... lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. –Matthew 28:18-20

Those 2 texts as well as the ones below are the reason I reject the SDA stance where EGW teaches that during probation, the time period from when the IJ is completed until the 2nd Coming, the Holy Spirit and Intercessor will be withdrawn from us until the 2nd Coming forcing us to stand before God on our own.

... but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel: ‘AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,’ God says, ‘THAT I WILL POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND; –Acts 2:16-17

I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever;  –John 14:16

Posted anonymously by: Ane

Bob

You are going to find a lot of mixed and conflicting information out there on the scapegoat. I finally had to let the Bible be its own best commentary on the topic.

I think some of the best evidence that certainly mean it cannot represent Satan are found in Lev. 16:10 and 21.

Verse 10 says the lot was drawn so atonement could be made upon the scapegoat. Atonement is not done by Satan.

Verse 21 says Aaron laid his hands on the scapegoat and confessed the sins of Israel over it. We don’t confess our sins to Satan.

Ane

Hey everyone, great discussion! My time is somewhat limited this weekend, but in reading this thread I thought of a discussion Guibox, Stan and I had on the topic of forgiveness.

The frame of reference for the discussion was 1 John 1:8-10: “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” (1 John 1:8-10 ESV)

I’ll post what John MacArthur says in his commentary about this text:

[quote author="John MacArthur"]
Continual confession of sin is an indication of genuine salvation. While the false teachers would not admit their sin, the genuine Christian admitted and forsook it (Ps. 32:3-5; Prov. 28:13). The term confess means to say the same thing about sin as God does; to acknowledge His perspective about sin. While verse 7 is from God’s perspective, verse 9 is from the Christian’s perspective. Confession of sin characterizes genuine Christians, and God continually cleanses those who are confessing (cf. v. 7). Rather than focusing on confession for every single sin as necessary, John has especially in mind here a settled recognition and acknowledgment that one is a sinner in need of cleansing and forgiveness (Eph. 4:32; Col. 2:13).

There’s an aspect of salvation captured by the phrase “now, not yet” which describes our justification (now), our continual perseverance (now and not yet), and or future (not yet) glorification (see Romans 8:28-30).  While all of these have been accomplished from the foundation of the world in Christ, we await for the day when we will see “face to face” and experience the reality of our glorified bodies.  Until then, faith and repentance are a continual evidence of the Christian life as our we see our sin in its true light and our yearning for a future sinless nature becomes ever stronger.  As we develop in Christian maturity, our continued prayers bring us into ever-increasing conformity with God’s will, and is part of His ever-present cleansing (sanctification) of us.

Greg