Etikettarkiv | punish

Declaring the end from the beginning – Isaiah 46:9-10 – does not mean God predestines sin

CreationIsaiah 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure (KJV)

Isaiah 46:10 DECLARING FROM THE BEGINNING THE LATTER END, And from of old that which hath not been done, Saying, `My counsel doth stand, And all My delight I do.’ (Young’s Literal)

So, from the very beginning of time God has declared something that will take place in the latter end, and we can continue on to v. 11 and v. 12-13 to see exactly what this is. It’s about the coming of a ”ravenous bird”, but most importantly about the fact that salvation will come from Zion.  God is able to tell us through his prophets what will happen in the future whether God himself wants these things to happen or not. In this case it looks like what he is telling us through Isaiah is something that God himself has decreed will happen. See further down below. Also, if God delights in a world where man has free will and able to obey/disobey and where he is responsible for his own actions, can God make such a world? Yes! God can do anything he wants.

Some of our reformed friends translate ”declaring the end from the beginning” to ”I decide and predestine every step that a man makes and he has no choice but to act exactly as I have caused him to act ”, and they translate ”my counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure to ”my counsel is to unconditionally cause a certain elect group of people to believe in me, and my pleasure is to orchestrate everything that happens, including causing people to sin – and I will also punish them for this sin by sending them to hell for it ”. 

But if that interpretation is true, then of course God has always wanted people to be born depraved and with a sinful nature that causes them all to sin, and that would absolutely make God the author of sin and the one we must blame for all wickedness in the world. We would have no other choice but to trace each case of murder, violence, abortion and rape back to GOD and we must even conclude that he caused Satan to rebel against him. Some reformed believers object to the notion that God is the author of sin, which their doctrine necessitates, but there are numerous calvinists who admit that they believe in a God who makes people sin for his glory.

What does the rest of the chapter Isaiah 46 say?

1 Bel boweth down, Nebo stoopeth, their idols were upon the beasts, and upon the cattle: your carriages were heavy loaden; they are a burden to the weary beast.

It’s really interesting that God would want his people to make use of IDOLS, despite that the first commandment that God gave Moses is:

”You shall have no other gods before me”

Could God really be angry at his people for making idols, if he is the one who predestines them to make them? Will people risk their souls for making these idols and for worshiping them, despite that it’s according to God’s will? Will people end up in hell despite obeying God to 100%?

Hearken unto me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, which are borne by me from the belly, which are carried from the womb:

It’s strange that God would say ”hearken unto me...” just like people could choose to NOT hearken unto him. It’s also interesting that God suggests that the house of Jacob and the remnant of the house of Israel were ”borne by me from the belly” because this sounds like they were not born depraved, and yet not all individuals from this group will always be good and obedient people.

6 They lavish gold out of the bag, and weigh silver in the balance, and hire a goldsmith; and he maketh it a god: they fall down, yea, they worship.7 They bear him upon the shoulder, they carry him, and set him in his place, and he standeth; from his place shall he not remove: yea, one shall cry unto him, yet can he not answer, nor save him out of his trouble.8 Remember this, and shew yourselves men: bring it again to mind, O ye transgressors.

Again, it’s very interesting that God would cause his people to make an idol to bow down for and to worship, despite that God also tells them multiple times that they should have no other God before him. What would be his reason for predestining them to do something horrible like that? Does he want us to obey his commandments or not? We can also read that they were transgressors, and that would be people who transgress the divine commandments in violation to the one who gave those commandments. But how could this be, if God is the one who directs every single one of their steps and that nothing that comes to pass happens against his will? If God is the one who causes people to make idols, can we really say that they ”transgress” his command to not make idols? If God is the one who wants them to make idols and cause them to make idols, then it’s hard to see how this could be a ”transgression” of any kind. So it seems like God causes his people to act in a way that goes against his own principles, as though God is battling with some schizophrenic problems. The best way to solve it is of course to flee from calvinism, because that would at once take care of all Bible contradiction that this gnostic theology has caused AND God’s holy nature and reputation would be intact.

Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Here comes our famous quote. Couldn’t ”declaring the end from the beginning” mean that God has foreknowledge of certain events and has taken measures to both punish people who transgress his laws, as well as helping those people out who seek him and turn to him for his aid? The context is about the deliverance of his people from Babylon by the hand of Cyrus, which he purposed and prophesied about. The terms ”my counsel” and ”my pleasure” don’t necessarily mean that God alone micro manages every single step that people make –  against their will and without conditions. Each person is responsible for his own actions, and we can often see God acting based on the premise ”if you do this, I will do that”. If God is the one who directs our steps unconditionally, then the blame for all evil darkness must be placed on God alone – and God should ask us for forgiveness for causing so much wickedness and evil.

11 Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.

Aha, this is the verse right after v. 10, and here we can see exactly what his ”pleasure” might be and what it is that he has declared according to his counsel. He has apparently called ”a ravenous bird from the east – a man of his counsel”. It’s not certain who this is, but it might be a reference to Cyrus who God indirectly might have involved in his plans for Israel. All God has to do is to remove his protective hands from a certain leader among his people, resulting in that the enemy would get sufficient help needed to be victorious. God doesn’t always interfere in such manner, but it looks like this is a rare case where he did. It’s inconceivable to believe that a holy God places evil desires in someone’s heart, because there is no darkness in God and he doesn’t tempt anyone – much less cause people to sin. Even if Israel will initially be shaken, there is also a plan for SALVATION – which is purposed by God. So the ultimate purpose by God, and what he will execute according to the counsel of his will, is to bring salvation from Zion. Read on.

12 Hearken unto me, ye stouthearted, that are far from righteousness:

Isn’t it interesting that God would consider making people stouthearted and unrighteous? Yet, this is what he must have done if we must interpret v. 9-10 as though God predestines everything. And why continuously asking people to hearken unto him, if he knows that they can do nothing BUT hearken to him? People are not able to listen to God if God has prevented them from doing so. Things always pan out the way God wants in the calvinistic world.

13 I bring near my righteousness; it shall not be far off, and my salvation shall not tarry: and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel my glory.

”Salvation in Zion” sounds like a promise about the upcoming Messiah who will come forth in the future in Zion, and he will be of the blood of Jacob and King David. This is something that happens according to the council of his will, and nowhere in the chapter does it say that God causes people to think and to act in a certain way. ”I bring near my righteousness”, God says, and that doesn’t sound like there is much room for wickedness and unrighteousness – which is something abominable in God’s eyes.

Annonser

God the Father did not FORSAKE Jesus on the cross – Matt. 27:46

cross8

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Did God the Father really separate himself from Jesus and abandoned him on the cross? Is it true that the Father could not even look at Jesus due to the sins of the world that Jesus literally bore in his body? Did God the Father PUNISH Jesus on the cross?

No these ideas derived rather late in our history (we can blame Anselm of Canterbury for most of them even if they were later established by the reformers), and God the Father did NOT abandon Jesus on the cross in any way. Wasn’t the plan and God’s own idea that Jesus would die for mankind? Why then would he abandon his son on the cross when Jesus was nothing but faithful and obedient UNTO DEATH? No, God did not contradict himself by first giving up his son to die for the world, only to cowardly look away when his son needed him the most. The Bible is clear that Jesus was NOT a sinner on the cross in any way, but he was totally clean and undefiled. Jesus was NOT punished by the Father and he did NOT literally bear our sins in his body. (See more in this article.)

Eph. 5:And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

Hebr. 7: 26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

2 Cor 1:15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain 

In Matt. 27:64 it doesn’t say that the Father abandoned Jesus, but Jesus does ask a question in relation to being abandoned, and this question could of course be heard by those who stood near the cross. They could therefore hear yet another prophesy about the Messiah even if they didn’t quite realize it at that moment. There were many prophesies which came true in Jesus Christ and that includes this many faceted question that Jesus shouted out, because it’s a quote from one of King David’s psalms which actually relates to himself (Jesus). The psalm in question is about David’s call for God and his (David’s) initial pondering if his prayers are even heard. Nevertheless, David continues by declaring that God indeed is the one who listens, answers, helps and liberates people when they have a true heart and seek him. The case could be that Jesus’s feelings on the cross were overwhelming and that he shared some of David’s feelings those last horrible moments on the cross when he alone took his last painful breaths. He died for the sins of the world but it must have felt as though the whole world was against him. Jesus is God, but he is also a human being with feelings just like ours. Quoting this psalm was perfect, because it has given us a chance to go back to it and read about both King David and Jesus, and we get many details about what transpired on the cross despite that this psalm was written long before Jesus was even born. Just like King David’s own conclusions, Jesus knew that God DOES listen and answer even in our toughest moments.

Ps. 22:1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?O my God, I cry in the day time, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.—5 They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were NOT confounded.6 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.7 All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,8 He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.—11 Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help.—14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.17 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.—24 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; NEITHER HATH HE HID HIS FACE FROM HIM, BUT WHEN HE CRIED UNTO HIM; HE HEARD.

The next psalm is the famous Ps. 23 which starts with ”The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want”. Would a true shepherd really abandon his own sheep and purposely turn his back on it?

Ps. 23:1 The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.

Isaiah 49:14 But Zion said, The Lord hath forsaken me, and my Lord hath forgotten me.15 Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee.

Jesus did not PAY a DEBT and was not PUNISHED on the cross (penal satisfaction)

cross1

The error of the Penal Satisfaction theory

/Thanks to my friend Lyndon Conn for the below

Jesus suffered greatly, taking many stripes, was bruised and beaten, etc. He did all of this FOR us, but those things were not Atonement themselves. It was His death (shedding of blood and Life for a life – innocent for the guilty) that made atonement. Animals were never beaten or punished BEFORE they were finally killed for atonement.

The Penal Satisfaction atonement teaches that Jesus was punished in our place as He was beaten and bruised by God. This is not true at all! He was mistreated by MEN as a form of punishment for something He did not do. He could not be truly punished by God for any reason whatsoever since He was without sin. God not only NEVER punished a sacrifice (but only accepted the acceptable sacrifice), but sin was never literally on either the animals or on Jesus – since sin is not a substance that can be moved or transferred. When the Bible speaks of ”Taking away” sins, it is talking about the born again experience and the transformation that takes place when a person confesses their sins. Sins are then ”taken away” but the person being made into a new creation – as old things pass away and all things become new. Jesus made provision for all men so that all they need to do is confess Him as the acceptable sacrifice, and in turn also offer themselves a living sacrifice. These are likened unto the day of atonement in the 2 goats for the entire nation (as Christ represents both, the acceptable sacrifice in goat 1, and the scapegoat in goat 2 by taking away the sins of the world). And our repentance is likened unto the offering of the bull for personal sins.

Sin is not punished in Christ and they are not ”paid for”! These are both lies passed down through the RCC and not biblical at all. We have had bad theology so heavily imparted into our thinking that we think many things are fact that are not at all. We have never questioned them, and hear it all the time, preach it all the time, and never think otherwise, but I will challenge this thinking. Not to teach a different doctrine, but to show a different understanding of the same doctrine. The end is the same, but the path that takes us there is flawed.

Nowhere does the Bible literally teach the following: Jesus PAID FOR sins; He was PUNISHED by God;  He ”took our place”; He ”paid our debt”, and other financial terms that should only be understood figuratively. The literal is that He ”provided” for forgiveness; He did for us what we could not do for ourselves; and so on. Incorrect terms lead to many false doctrines like Limited Atonement and Universalism, and many are very inconsistent by not believing one or the other. Incorrect terminology can lead in 2 directions – one towards truth and the other towards error. With payment for sins – we might be able to draw a proper understanding from it (as I did for many years as well) – understanding that Jesus died for our sins and making the way of salvation for us – but the problem with the terminology is that it’s misused and could lead to error.

If Jesus ”paid for” our sins on the cross, then something that is paid for is completely finished and nothing else needs to be done at all. If Jesus ”paid for” the sins of the whole world, then all men are saved and do not even need to repent because their sins are already paid for. It is all done for them. This is why Calvinism has to create their doctrine of Limited Atonement – teaching that Jesus only died for the elect – in order to prevent Universalism. So then, Jesus ”paid for” the sins of the elect only, and did not die for the sins of the non-elect. As wrong as this is, it is actually more consistent with the teaching of ”payment for sins”.

The fact that WE are ”bought with a price” does not teach a payment for SINS. ”We” and our ”sins” are 2 different things. The wages of sin is and always will be death! Men still go to hell for their sins. Our only hope is to confess our sins to Jesus, the scapegoat of God, so He can ”take them away”. This is figurative! Sin is not a substance that can be put on another or literally taken anywhere. Sin is an attitude of the heart. It is a mindset that leads to actions that displease God. Man’s only hope is to have this part of him changed (transformed). It all starts with being Born Again. Old things are PASSED AWAY, and all things are become new. Sins are never punished IN man in this life (except by chastisement for the Christians if they sin and need to learn something). Sin itself is not punished at all. Man is punished and will be punished in eternity. So our only hope is to have sins ”taken away”.

Atonement terminology is mostly all figurative, but the figurative ALWAYS points to the literal! So we have to seek understanding of the literal, and be careful not to take the figurative itself too literally. This WILL lead to error. You cannot have ”actual and factual” without literal.  We just need to understand what it actually and factually is! It is NOT a payment, but a provision! It is not punishment of Christ by God, but abuse of Christ by men – which He endured FOR us – but not literally in our place. No man could ever die for his own sins, therefore it could never be our place, but only HIS place to die as atonement. Men will still die for their own sins. There is no ”debt” that we owe, but only ”wages” to be paid. A debt is something to be paid to another, while wages are what we have earned and have coming to US. We do not owe God anything, but repentance and our lives. There is nothing at all that we could possible ”pay” to God to ”buy” our souls back. These are all financial terms, including ransom and redeem, which both refer to the work of Christ on our behalf. The financial terms are all used to help give us understanding by using terms we can understand , but they are all figurative and not to be taken too literally. We must look to the literal they point to.cross7

The Bible says that He is the ”propitiation” for our sins – which literally means, ”He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins”. Propitiation is a term used in pagan rituals of offering their children to their gods as a sacrifice to appease their anger. It can give a picture of Jesus removing the anger of God against us, but should not be taken to the extreme to teach that He was an object of God’s wrath – with our sins literally on Him! Truth can be drawn and understood from this word; yet error can be as well if taken too far. There is no forgiveness of sins at all without repentance. There is provision for forgiveness that has to be received, but there is no actual forgiveness until then. The idea of a payment gives a false idea here, and it leads to false doctrines – making it easy for those who teach them to draw others into their errors. And Calvinism is growing stronger every day. I just heard a story yesterday about how so many Churches are turning Calvinist, and this has a great deal to do with it!

If you believe atonement is a literal payment,  then who was paid? The devil? The Father? And if paid, then a payment cannot be unpaid, right? A provision is something that is done FOR us that we could not do for ourselves; while we must RECEIVE it through faith – or reject it. Sins are not ”carried away” until we receive Him and confess our sins to Him so He can take our sins away – and then, where there are no sins and there is no guilt. But if sins are ”paid for”, you cannot have them paid for one a person is ”justified”, or have payment applied only at that time. This can work in the figurative, but not in the literal.

If we go back to Leviticus, sins were never ”paid for”. The only difference is that Jesus was without sin and He could be the one-time sacrifice for all time. But the idea of atoning for sins was the same. There had to be an ACCEPTABLE sacrifice and a scapegoat for the yearly offering. This was provision for the nation as a whole, but individuals still had to bring their own personal sacrifices of a bull for their owns sins – which is likened unto our repentance and offering of ourselves unto God as a living sacrifice. Neither were any form of a payment! Such an idea is added by men, starting with the RCC in the 12th century under Anselm.

We are figuratively covered in His blood, in that because of the shedding of His blood and out acceptance of Him as the atoning sacrifice for our sins, as the blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled, we receive Him and all that He did for us as we confess our sins before Him. Our acceptance of Him as the one-time sacrifice that was without sin allows us to confess our sins and be forgiven of our sins. Our act of true repentance and accepting Jesus is accepted as if His blood were literally sprinkled on us, but no person has ever had His blood literally on them. Let’s get real here. This is what the RCC would have us believe. In communion they teach that the literal body and blood of Jesus is transferred to the bread and wine. So then we are cannibals and guilty of drinking blood – which is forbidden in the law of God.

True atonement is very simple and not half as complex as men have made it. God provided a Lamb in Jesus. We can accept His provision and confess our sins over Him and have them taken away, or we can choose to go our own way. God did not die for only some. He did not choose some and reject others. His atonement was for ALL men – the WHOLE WORLD as a provision for whosoever will call upon His name. Now it is up to men to offer themselves (their bull) to God in the confession of sins and acceptance of His provision. Very simple. Very biblical. And with no need of the additions of men. God’s wrath does not need to be appeased! If sins are ”taken away” by changing the man, then there is nothing for wrath to be against. However, if sins return, and repentance does not, wrath will be against such a man – as it is against the world. Very simple and completely scriptural.

Can sins be inherited?sheep 2

Sin is not a substance that can be passed down from one to another, but men inherit a condition that is passed down, and this condition is one that could lead us to sin. Romans 5:12 says that death is passed down. Men are born innocent, and therefore a baby is without sin and saved in its innocence. Sin is a choice – NOT something we inherit. Can the murderer blame their crime on their Father, or on Adam? No. Each man is responsible for his own choices and will be judged for them justly. Blame can never be passed to another, and neither can sin. Sin is defined in scripture as knowing to do right and not doing it, in which the opposite is just as true, in knowing something is wrong and doing it anyway. Sin is therefore a willful rebellion against a known law of God. For those who do not have His laws, Romans 2 says that their conscience becomes a law unto them. So whether we go against God’s law or our conscience, these are what define sin.

Every man and women are faced with choices between right and wrong. And each have the ability to choose what is right. Otherwise they could not be rightly judged for their choices, but because of spiritual death (separation from God), mankind will turn to his own lusts, having no guidance in life. They cannot choose what they do not know.

John 3:19 – ”And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.”

Men are sinners because they sin – which is contrary to popular belief. It is the majority of the Church today that has been infected with false teachings and cannot see it. They are not the worst errors out there but they do lead to them. If we want to rid the Church of error and keep Christians from confusion, then we need to get rid of the little errors that serve as stepping stools for the true heresies. The ”Sinning Religions” of our day, the OSAS teachings (once saved always saved), and Calvinism all gain strength from these erroneous atonement ideas and false understandings of sin and death.

Tertullian – On Repentance, chapter 6 ”For repentance is the price at which the Lord has determined to award pardon: He proposes the redemption of release from penalty at this compensating exchange of repentance. If, then, sellers first examine the coin with which they make their bargains, to see whether it be cut, or scraped, or adulterated, we believe likewise that the Lord, when about to make us the grant of so costly merchandise, even of eternal life, first institutes a probation of our repentance.”Chapter 9 – ”but inasmuch as by confession satisfaction is settled, of confession repentance is born; by repentance God is appeased.”