Tag Archive | satisfaction

Blev Jesus en FÖRBANNELSE i vårt ställe? Gal. 3:13

paidGal. 3:13 Kristus friköpte oss från lagens förbannelse, när han blev en förbannelse i vårt ställe. Det står skrivet: Förbannad är var och en som är upphängd på trä. 

Det grekiska ordet för ”förbannelse” är κατάρα (katara, Strong’s 3671), och används även i Gal. 3:10 (och vid ytterligare fyra tillfällen i Nya Testamentet). I Jakobsbrevet 3:10 kontrasteras ”förbannelse” helt enkelt med ”välsignelse”, som alltså är dess motsats.

Gal. 3:10 Men alla som håller sig till laggärningar är under förbannelse. Det står skrivet: Under förbannelse står den som inte håller fast vid allt som är skrivet i lagens bok och gör därefter.

5 Mos. 27:26 Förbannad är den som inte upprätthåller alla ord i denna lag genom att följa dem. Och allt folket skall säga: ”Amen.”

En förklarande mellanvers är ”v. 12 Men lagen säger inte ”av tro”, utan den som håller dessa bud skall leva genom dem.” Jmf. 3 Mos 18:5. Det är alltså stor skillnad mellan Mose lag och den nya lagen som Jesus införde som är byggd på tro med vägledning av den helige Ande. En tro som självfallet visar sig i goda gärningar, precis som fallet var med Abraham. Mose lag kräver fullständig lydnad avseende alla delar av de 613 olika detaljerade lagarna, för annars är man en lagöverträdare. Det finns förstås en väg ut ur dilemmat genom att omvända sig – och under Mose lag kombinera det med djuroffer (det finns ingen förlåtelse utan blod). Guds lagar är till för människornas bästa och vad gäller Mose lag så handlar det till stor del om instruktioner hur man bäst beter sig mot sin nästa. Att bryta mot Guds lag är ofta detsamma som att behandla sin nästa på ett negativt sätt, och där man sätter sig själv i första rum på bekostnad av andra.

Jesus blev en förbannelse i vårt ställe (eller tydligare översatt från grekiska: FÖR OSS), vilket inte är detsamma som att han blev syndig. Att vara skyldig till synd innebär en personlig överträdelse av Guds lag, och denna skyldighet kan inte tas över av någon annan. Framför allt inte det felfria lammet Jesus Kristus.

I Gal. 3:10-13 refererar Paulus till 5 Mos. 21-22-23.

5 Mos. 21:22 Om det på någon vilar en synd som förtjänar döden och man avrättar honom och hänger upp honom på trä, 23 så skall den döda kroppen inte lämnas kvar på träet över natten. Du skall begrava den samma dag, ty en Guds förbannelse är den som har blivit upphängd. Du skall inte orena det land som Herren, din Gud, ger dig till arvedel.

Där handlar det om instruktioner för Israels folk gällande allvarliga synder som förtjänar döden (alltså inte alla synder) och att den skyldige ska upphängas på trä. Lagen krävde då att kroppen inte skulle hänga kvar över natten, utan begravas samma dag. Skälet till den snabba begravningen sägs vara att en Guds förbannelse är den som har blivit upphängd. Detta betyder att personen var föremål för gudomligt missnöje, såsom tyngd under en Guds förbannelse (pga en synd värdig döden). Under den här tiden var varken Jesus eller korsfästelser kända, men den här lagen passar onekligen in som en bra bild på Jesus Kristus som frivilligt tog på sig största tänkbara straff på träkorset pga våra synder som förtjänar döden. Som om han vore den störste av alla syndare. I stället för att människorna måste dö pga den förbannelse som lagöverträdelser leder till, så tog Jesus denna förbannelse på sig själv – på så sätt att han dog som ett syndoffer på korset för våra synder (endast på det sättet är hans död ställföreträdande). Men inte på så sätt att vår synd drabbade honom, eller att han i stället för oss tog det straffet som vi skulle ha. Det var aldrig tänkt att vårt straff skulle vara korsfästelse, men snarare evig död i helvetet.

För att vi skulle slippa att vara föremål för en förbannelse och ett välförtjänt straff så tog Jesus bort skulderna genom att dö för oss. Att Jesus dog på samma sätt som den värsta förbrytaren betyder alltså inte att han var kriminell (eller blev kriminell under straff), utan att straffet var detsamma som för en förbrytare.

Sonens död var helt enligt Faderns vilja, så det fanns alltså inga skäl för Fadern att separera sig själv från sonen på minsta vis eller låta sin vrede drabba honom. Guds vrede uttöms endast över lagöverträdare, och det har Jesus aldrig varit. Jesus offer var verkligen väldoftande inför Gud Fader.

”The passage should never be so interpreted as to leave the impression that he was in any conceivable sense the object of the divine displeasure. —-Jesus was not guilty in any proper sense of the word. —His sufferings were in the place of the penalty, not the penalty itself. They were a substitution for the penalty, and were, therefore, strictly and properly vicarious, and were not the identical sufferings which the sinner would himself have endured.”

”Jesus was not sinful, or a sinner, in any sense. He did not so take human guilt upon him, that the words sinful and sinner could with any propriety be applied to him. They are not applied to him any way in the Bible; but there the language is undeviating. It is that in all senses he was holy and undefiled. And yet language is often used on this subject which is horrible and only a little short of blasphemy, as if he was guilty, and as if he was even the greatest sinner in the universe.”

/Albert Barnes

”Redeem” eller ”friköpa” (satt fri)

Gal. 3:13 innehåller ordet ”friköpte” och det förekommer även i Gal. 4:5, Ef. 5:16 och Kol. 4:5. På engelska, såsom i KJV, används ordet ”redeemed”. Det här med att köpa, friköpa och betala kan vara luriga begrepp när man använder dem teologiskt eftersom man kan associera till fel saker, men det går förstås också att förstå orden rätt i sitt sammanhang. ”Redeem” (friköpa) kommer här från det grekiska ἐξαγοράζω (exagorazó, Strong’s 1805) med betydelsen av att lösa ut eller köpa ut såsom med betydelsen av att rädda från att gå förlorad. I KJV är just redeem eller ransom vanliga översättningar, och fördelen med de orden är att man inte måste associera till pengar, skuldbetalningar eller köp av varor (som är starkt kopplade till s.k. ”försoningsläran” som myntades av Anselm av Canterbury). En uppförsbacke när man diskuterar Jesu korsfästelse är att vi kanske tolkar begrepp på olika sätt (såsom ”försoningsläran”, eller ”ställföreträdande död”), så ett förtydligande resonemang hur man menar kan onekligen hjälpa. Dessutom så kan översättningar till eller från engelska trassla till det ytterligare då samma begrepp uppfattas på ett annat sätt på det andra språket.

Man skulle kunna säga att Jesu död handlar om att han befriade oss från bördan av att behöva fortsätta att befinna oss under Mose lag – på bekostnad av hans död. Det pris som Jesus Kristus betalade för att ge oss möjlighet till evigt liv var sin egen smärtsamma död på Golgata. Att offra sitt eget liv är onekligen ett högt pris att betala. Notera noga att detta inte innebär att Jesus betalade en skuld, utan snarare TOG BORT en skuld. Man skulle kunna jämföra det pris som Jesus betalade med soldater som betalar ett högt pris för sitt land när de försvarar det under krig och kanske skadas eller t o m dör i sin kamp. Inga pengatransaktioner krävs för att ”betala ett högt pris” på detta sätt. Det är snarare OFFRET som åsyftas.

Om någon har förstört eller haft bort en annan persons ägodel så känns de naturliga alternativen som att den drabbade antingen kräver betalning/ersättning för den skadade ägodelen, eller att han/hon förlåter + stryker skulden. Att både kräva full betalning samtidigt som man menar att man generöst stryker skulden är motsägelsefullt. Det är helt bakvänt att lova ”när du betalat värdet till fullo så förlåter jag dig och stryker skulden”. Det är antingen eller. Läs gärna liknelsen i Matt. 18:23-35, där en Kung först RADERADE en tjänares skulder (det var alltså ingen annan som betalade dem) men där tjänaren åter fick skulderna tillbaka pga att han vägrade att förlåta en annan persons skulder. Notera att i liknelsen är förlåta detsamma som att stryka skulder. Det kan handla om skulder i pengar, men även överträdelser/handlingar som någon gjort mot en annan.

Det är viktigt att befria sig från tankarna att det skulle handla om att betala en skuld eller att associera till banktransaktioner, för om vi måste tänka i banorna av en skuldbetalning så tvingas vi även att erkänna att en betald skuld är just en 100% betald skuld. Betalt är betalt! Om jag har en skuld och någon träder in och betalar denna skuld åt mig så måste den betraktas som betald. Om våra synder blev betalda för 2000 år sedan när Jesus dog på korset, så leder det till att våra synder är betalda redan innan vi utför dem, samt att vi har en ”license to sin”. Då hamnar farligt nära Satans lögn ”Ingalunda skall ni dö”. Läs gärna mer i denna artikel och denna.

substituteAtt FÖRLÅTA handlar om att man hoppar över att utkräva straff eller betalning/ersättning för en skuld  – Man UTRADERAR/STRYKER den helt enkelt!

Jesus Kristus offrade sitt liv för oss så att straffet för våra synder skulle kunna bli strukna (friköpta) OM vi omvänder oss och tror. Våra synder tar inte en extrasväng in i Jesu kropp innan de tas bort. Han behöver inte bokstavligt få dem på sig eller i sig. Synda är något man gör och ingenting som kan överflyttas till någon annans kropp. Jesus dog för att våra synder skulle raderas – vilket kan ske om vi omvänder oss och tror. Antingen så förlåter och stryker Gud våra tidigare skulder (definitivt inte våra framtida), eller också utkräver han straff och/eller full betalning för våra skulder.

Joh. 1:29 Nästa dag såg han Jesus komma, och han sade: ”Se Guds lamm, som TAR BORT världens synd.

Straffet för våra synder anses vara evig separation från Gud och helvete. Tog Jesus det straffet på sig och i stället för oss? Nej, eftersom vi fortfarande riskerar Guds vrede och helvetet för våra synder. Att predika ”Jesus tog straffet för våra synder, och han betalade vår skuld”, skulle kunna missförstås och missbrukas. En ateist skulle kunna håna begreppen och säga ”Så bra att Jesus tog straffet för mina synder! Då är jag ju fria att synda! Har han betalt för mina skulder så är de väl helt betalda för alltid? Betalt är betalt! Ingen betalar en faktura två gånger!”.

Jesus ”bar” våra synder symboliskt på sina axlar då han dog en ställföreträdande död. Gud föredrar lydnad snarare än offer (1 Sam. 15:22; Ps. 51:16-17) Matt. 9:13; 12:7), och ett offer som inte är kombinerat med ett omvänt hjärta frälser inte. Jesus tog heller inte Guds vrede i stället för oss (som om Gud skulle ha behov att utspy vrede över folk för att kunna förlåta). Guds vrede fortsätter att drabba den som syndar, och kristna är inte undantagna (Lukas 21:23; Jn. 3:36; Rom. 1:18). Gud vänder inte bort från sin vrede förrän syndaren vänder bort från sin synd. Jesus dog för att vi ska kunna slippa den välförtjänta vreden, men på villkor av omvändelse. Guds vrede kan ”passera oss” (hoppa över oss) på vissa villkor, eftersom Jesus är vårt Passover-lamm  (1 Kor. 5:7).

Kanske missförstånd angående betydelsen av Jesu död delvis kommer från Luther, som uttryckt sig väldigt olyckligt:

Martin Luther:

”And this, no doubt, all the prophets did foresee in spirit, than Christ should become the greatest transgressor, murderer, adulterer, thief, rebel, and blasphemer, that ever was OR could be in the world. For he being made a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world is not now an innocent person and without sins; is not now the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary; but a sinner which hath and carrieth the sin of Paul, who was a blasphemer, an oppressor, and a persecutor; of Peter, which denied Christ; of David, which was an adulterer, a murderer, and caused the Gentiles to blaspheme the name of the Lord; and, briefly, which hath and beareth all the sins of all people in his body: not that he himself committed them, but for that he received them, being committed or done of us, and laid them upon his own body, that he might make satisfaction for them with his own blood./ Luther on the Galatians, Galatians 3:13. (pp. 213-215. London edition, 1838).

We are still risking GOD’s WRATH if we sin – penal substitution is wrong

vrede

Jesus did satisfy God’s wrath

God is not like an unruly child prone to throw tantrums whenever things do not go his way. The idea that his wrath can be ”satisfied” by letting someone else take the blame, for whatever caused his anger, does not make much sense. So God the Father would pour out wrath on his son, and then all things suddenly change for the better and we will never risk his wrath again? No, Jesus died as a sin offering for our sins (compare with the animal sacrifice system in the Old Testament which was also in relation to sin offerings). God would not pour out wrath on an innocent person and pretend that this would somehow fix the guilt of mankind. Jesus shed his blood for us to REMOVE our sins (not to literally take our sins on or in himself) but this will not happen automatically but rather when we REPENT for our sins.

1 John 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested TO TAKE AWAY our sins; and in him is no sin.

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, WHICH TAKETH AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD.

Hebr. 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared TO PUT AWAY SIN by the sacrifice of himself.—28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Rom. 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I SHALL TAKE AWAY their sins.

Ps. 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he REMOVED our transgressions from us.

Notice the difference between these two descriptions about the atonement of Christ. The first one can lead to serious misunderstandings:

”Jesus paid for our SINS on the cross and died instead of us and in our place. He also took our punishment instead of us and satisfied God’s wrath”

”Jesus died as a sin offering for all mankind (a high price), and by doing so enabled whosoever to be saved on the condition that they believe and repent”

Examples of God’s wrath till active today and in the future

If Jesus truly ”satisfied God’s wrath” or ”took God’s wrath on himself and instead of us”, then none of us would have to risk being affected by God’s wrath ever again – but that is not the case. The Bible tells us that God will show wrath on those who refuse to believe and/or those who do evil and it does not say that Christians are exempted.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven AGAINST ALL UNGODLINESS AND UNRIGHTEOUSNESS OF MEN, who hold the truth in unrighteousness

Romans 2:5 But after thy hardness and IMPENITENT HEART treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God

Romans 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But IF THOU DO THAT WHICH IS EVIL, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to EXECUTE WRATH UPON HIM THAT DOETH EVIL

John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but THE WRATH OF GOD ABIDES IN HIM.” (NASB)

”Children of disobedience” are adults who walk according to the course of this world, according to the lusts of their flesh, fulfilling the desires of their flesh and mind, etc. They are certainly not BORN that way but they can start bad habits and thus ”by nature” be rebellious and sinful. No one is of course able to fulfill the desires of their flesh and mind before they even have either flesh or minds. This is rather self-evident, but I am saying this due to those who believe that ”children of disobedience” are chosen to be exactly that before the world even began and before they are even born. Besides, many of those Christians to whom Paul wrote behaved in the same way, but they did not continue with this lifestyle. Those Christians were evidently not ”non-elect” even though they earlier in life behaved just like children of disobedience. Just like the name/term suggests, it is all about disobeying – and Christians do not get a free card if they choose to live in disobedience.

Eph. 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Eph. 5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

Col. 3:5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:7 In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.

It is possible also for ”sanctified” believers, for whom Jesus died, to be affected by the wrath of God and they will lose their salvation unless they repent:

Hebr. 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Just like Christians are not exempted from God’s wrath if they no longer live holy lives, also God’s chosen people Israel were in trouble due to disobedience and many of them did not enter the promised land. They were also expected to place trust in God due to his wondrous works, but they disappointed God by being rebellious.

Ps. 78:31 The wrath of God came upon them, and slew the fattest of them, and smote down the chosen men of Israel.32 For all this they sinned still, and believed not for his wondrous works.

The penal substitution theory is not Biblical – youtube film about the atonement of Christ

Do check Jesse Morell’s film about ”The vicarious atonement”, and do read the text under it. The penal substitution theory is not what the Bible describes and it’s actually a rather modern theory since it was birthed by Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) AD). It’s better to say ”Jesus died as a sin offering for the remission of sins”, instead of  ”Jesus paid four our sins, was punished instead of us and took the wrath of God instead of us”. The last suggestion might lead to a reformed (calvinistic) type of  thinking in order to save this unbiblical doctrine.

”Paul said, “God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe” (1 Tim. 4:10). “For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it” (Heb. 4:2). The atonement does not automatically or unconditionally save anyone; rather, it saves those who meet the conditions of repentance and faith. ”

”The fallaciousness of such a statement would be repeated if a person said, “Public schools do not exist to make education available to the public, but to actually educate students.” The truth is that public schools exist to do both. They exist to make education available to all while making it actual for those who have enrolled. In fact, education could not become actual unless it was first made available.”

”In the same way, Christ came to make salvation available to all, but salvation only becomes actual for those who are converted.”   

”The Penal Substitutionary atonement does ultimately necessitate either universalism or limited atonement.”

”If Jesus took the penalty that our sins deserved, it would be unjust for us to be punished. But then we are saved by justice, not grace. We could demand salvation instead of beg for it. If Jesus paid our debt, there is nothing left for God to forgive. So salvation would be void of any forgiveness. But the Bible says that Jesus died for the forgiveness of sins, that through His atonement there is forgiveness. His death, therefore, could not have been the punishment of our sins. Jesus taught us to pray for God to forgive us our debt. His death therefore could not have been the payment of our debt. This is why Calvinists like Albert Barnes and Jonathan Edwards rejected the Penal view of the atonement because it is void of any grace or forgiveness in our justification.”

”The Bible says without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. The Greek word remission means to remit penalty. That means through the atonement our penalty is remitted. The atonement itself, therefore, could not have been the penalty that we deserved. The penalty that we deserve is eternal hell, that is the penalty of the law, not crucifixion or physical death. Jesus did not suffer eternal hell, therefore He did not take our literal penalty.” 

”In forgiveness, God turns from His wrath. Forgiveness is not the satisfaction of His wrath. ”

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.”