We who preach the gospel must not think of ourselves as public relations agents sent to establish good will between Christ and the world. We must not imagine ourselves commissioned to make Christ acceptable to big business, the press, the world of sports or modern education. We are not diplomats but prophets, and our message is not a compromise but an ultimatum. A.W. Tozer

Monday, September 5, 2011

Did They Really Say That?

?!?
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. ... Christ will place all these sins upon Satan, ... so Satan, ... will at last suffer the full penalty of sin.
Ellen G. White, Great Controversy, p. 422, 485, 486, as cited by Sydney Cleveland in “White Washed,” p.41.
Nowhere does Scripture say that the scapegoat typified Satan!  Scripture plainly says Christ takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29) and that Christ bore our sins (1 Pet. 2:24, et al).  Satan is never spoken of as a sin-bearer.  

6 comments:

Cristofer Urlaub said...

I've never heard this doctrine before and it is pretty odd.

The author starts out saying, "It was seen..." Do they mean that it was seen in scripture? Do they give scriptural support for this idea? I'd be interested in finding out how they justify this. What's the full context of this quote?

A Watchman on the Wall said...

amen and AMEN.!!.. Jesus our Salvation took our sins upon Himself. The scapegoat is a picture of the sins placed upon Him - NOT satan.

It is difficult to understand how one can twist the scripture that is seemingly so plain ~ to those with eyes to see and hearts to believe.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Cristofer,
It is Seventh-day Adventist teachings. E.G. White found her teachings the same place the Mormons found theirs - by twisting Scripture and receiving "revelations."

072591 said...

It seems that a lot of these "revelations" come right after trying out some new mushrooms ...

Drew said...

I don't think it's that bizarre of a teaching. The theory as I heard it is that the living goat represents the jews who reject Jesus, retain their sins, follow satan, and get driven out. You can compare John 12:31.

But that said, although I accepted it for a little while I do agree now that it is probably a false theory. The sacrifices and stuff can just get kind of confusing because you often find more than one animal representing Jesus at the same time.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The point is not that it is particularly “bizarre” teaching, rather it is blatantly false teaching. The goats are not typified of anything in Scripture - one has to jump to their own conclusions base on their particular belief system and how they want to twist Scripture to support it. John 12:31 certainly has no contextual reference to anything of the sort. And sin was NEVER placed on Satan, which is what makes this such a blatantly false teaching.