Tag Archive | substitution

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.

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.”

Jesus paid a high price as a sin offering for us, but he did not PAY for our SINS

In the parable in Matthew 18:23–35, we can see that the servant who had a debt (sin) to the King was LOOSED and FORGIVEN for it. The debt was REMOVED. TAKEN AWAY. No one offered to pay the debt for this servant but it was simply ERASED due to his pleadings. However, when the same servant later refused to forgive another person, then the same debt was back on the table yet again! Had the debt been paid for originally, then the King couldn’t request for yet another payment of a debt which is already paid and settled, regardless of any bad  behavior of the guilty servant. But we know that when we ask for forgiveness and repent, it’s our PAST sins that are forgiven and removed. Not our FUTURE sins. If Jesus had PAID for all our sins on the cross, then we would be BORN forgiven and saved. If we would sin, we could always suggest that we’re still safe since Jesus has already PAID for our transgressions, and this means we don’t have to. We could also suggest that we can actually serve two masters and still be saved, because our sins are already forgiven. We would actually be off the hook and free from punishment no matter what we did. Clearly this is not the true scenario. This is the parable:

Matt 18:23Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants. 24And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents. 25But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. 26The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. 27Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and LOOSED him, and FORGAVE him the debt. 28But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest. 29And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. 30And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt. 31So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done. 32Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: 33Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? 34And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. 35So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

When it comes to the animal sacrifice system in the OT, there are no verses which say anything close to ”sins were transferred to the animal”. Was the animal sacrificed OR punished? The animal certainly suffered and died as a result of the sin of man, but never did the animal become posessed by sin and die for those sins. This would imply guilt and that the animal was being punished for sins it did not commit. In the same way Jesus suffered and died because of man’s sin. He did not die because sin was transferred to Him, otherwise it would not be an adequate sacrifice. Rather than being an offering for sin and suffering an unjust death, he would have been punished for our sin which we know was not the case since He was without sin.

2 Cor. 5:21 For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin

Hebrews 10:8 — saying above, Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and [sacrifices] for sin thou wouldst not, neither hadst pleasure therein.

It is not uncommon to the Scriptures to use the word ”sin” to refer to a ”sin offering” as the word ”sin” is translated ”sin offering” in numerous places throughout Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Chronicles, Nehemiah, and Ezekiel, because the context of such passages is clearly referring to a sin offering and not an act of sin. In Leviticus alone, it is rightly translated as sin-offering over 50 times! The same is true in Hebrews 10:6-8 which is a quotation from Psalm 40:6. In the Psalm, the Septuagint also does not have the word ”sacrifice” in the text. Albert Barnes said To be sin – The words ”to be” are not in the original. Literally, it is, ”he has made him sin, or a sin-offering”Even a footnote in the ASV gives sin-sacrifice as the meaning, as do other translations. This view of the atonement, that Christ suffered our penalty and took our punishment, has inevitably lead to the errors of universalism, limited atonement, unconditional salvation, and once saved always saved. These conclusions cannot be logically denied if the premise is accepted that Jesus Christ took our punishment or suffered the penalty for our sins.

Gal. 3:13Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree

What is the curse of the law? Did the law of God ever demand for sinners to be crucified? No. In the civil government of Israel, the severest punishment of the law was stoning. Crucifixion was sanctioned by Roman law, but it was not sanctioned by Jewish law. Under the moral government of God, the severe punishment of the law is eternal hell. That is why the text says that Jesus suffer ”a curse” not sufferedthe curse of the law”. The curse of the law is what we are saved FROM; a curse is what he ENDURED. The curse of the law was SUBSTITUTED with a curse.”

Jesus Christ shed his blood ”for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28), but the Bible says that even after the atonement that sinners must still repent ”for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38)

Jesus died to reconcile God and man (Rom. 5:10; Col. 1:21) but after the atonement we have the ”ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18) and after the atonement we are to tell men ”be ye reconciled unto God”(2 Cor. 5:20)

If Christ bore the sinner’s punishment as a Substitute, then the sinner is unconditionally free from it, for both the sinner and the Substitute cannot be justly punished for the same offence. The theory, therefore, leads necessarily to either universalism on the one hand, or unconditional election on the other. The truth is though that Jesus died on my behalf but did not take MY place on the cross.

The animal for a sin-offering had to be absolutely pure, without a blemish, all of which Jesus was. For Him to have become ”sin” in the sense of disobedience to God, He would have become a blemished sacrifice. The priests making an offering under the Law also had to be as spotless as the sacrifice they offered. Just so, Jesus as High Priest was ”holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heaven … when he offered up himself,” Hebrews 7:26-27. Leviticus 16:22 says the scapegoat will ”bear … unto a land” the sins of the people. This was figurative, meaning to ”take away” sins, remove sins as is the likely definition of ”azazel.” The scapegoat symbolized the removal of sins. This is exactly the meaning to be attached to Jesus’ ”bearing our sins”.

Isaiah 53:4, 11-12.Surely he hath borne (nasa) our griefs, and carried (sabal) our sorrows … for he shall bear (sabal) their iniquities … and he bare (nasa) the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Notice that the two words are used interchangeably.

Matthew 8:16-17And when even was come, they brought unto him many possessed with demons: and he cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all that were sick: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our diseases.

What Jesus performed in healing the physical diseases was the fulfillment of Isaiah 53:4, specifically that He bore (nasa) our griefs and carried (sabal) our sorrows. But, their diseases were not transferred to Jesus so that he then became a leper, demon possessed, blind, etc. Yet, he ”bore” their diseases in fulfillment of Isaiah 53:4 and he took away their diseases! The Greek word for ”bare” in Matthew 8:17 is bastazo, which is the inspired translation of nasa. Bastazo may mean to take up, to transport, to carry, to take away or to remove. In this figurative use, the emphasis is on the taking away, removal. The word for ”took” in this passage is lambano. It’s obvious in Matthew 8:17 that bastazo and lambano are synonyms and mean to remove.

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear (bastazo).

Seeing that the Holy Spirit gives us the meaning of nasa and sabal in Isaiah 53:4, why should we understand these words to mean any differently in Isaiah 53:11-12 when it says He ”bare their iniquities” or ”bare the sins of many?” This only tells us that He ”took away” the sins and iniquities, not that the sins and iniquities were transferred to him or imputed to him.

 Hebrews 9:26 …else must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once at the end of the ages hath he been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself … so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation,” , 28.

Verse 28 repeats the subject of verse 26 with a slight change of words. ”Put away” in verse 26 becomes ”bear” in verse 28. ”Sacrifice” in verse 26, becomes ”offered” in verse 28. Jesus bore our sins in that He took them away.

I Peter 2:24″—who his own self bare (anaphero) our sins in his body upon the tree, that we, having died unto sins, might live unto righteousness; by whose stripes ye were healed.

In this passage, the ”cross” replaces the altar as the place of sacrifice. The body of Jesus was offered up on an altar, an offering to God. The last sentein the Septuagint by anaphero. He ”shall bear (sabal/anaphero) their iniquities” and ”he bare (nasa/anaphero) the sin of many”. We have seen the meaning of nasa and sabal to be to take away. The same is true in an offering up of a sacrifice.

Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on (paga) him the iniquity of us all

Paga is found in Isaiah 53:12 ”made intercession for the transgressors”. So, even in the context of verse 6, the same verb is used to mean ”intercession.” The Hebrew scholars who translated Isaiah 53:6 into Greek ”and the Lord gave him up for our sins”. The verb paredoken, from paradidomi, means to deliver up or intercede. Paradidomi is in the following two N.T. passages,

Romans 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all things?

John 1:29 On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world! 

 I Peter 2:24…who his own self bare (removed) our own sins in his body upon the tree

The fact that Jesus ”bore” our sins and iniquities does not mean our sins, guilt and punishment were transferred (imputed) to him. His death actually occurred but the terms used to describe what it accomplished are used figuratively.

1 Cor. 7:23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.

Jesus indeed paid a high price for us because he gave up his LIFE for us! The price he bought us with was his life. It doesn’t say we are purchased unconditionally though. In the same breath Paul tells us to NOT be servants of men. What would happen if we disobeyed him and became servants of men (as in living for people instead of God)?

Partly from Jesse Morell and Mike DeSario

History of the very recent origin of the Pretribulation rapture and Dispensationalism

First, a few Bible verses to show that pretribulation doesn’t work

Matthew 24:29IMMEDIATELY AFTER the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they (the angels) shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

1 Cor. 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the (2nd) coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; (The AntiChrist)4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

1 Thessalonians 4:16For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:17Then we which are ALIVE and REMAIN (from Tribulation) shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Revelation 7:14And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these whichare arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

Here are names of  writers to be very cautious about since they have been guilty of a lot of plagiarizing,  historical document revisionism , misquoting of others (and other dishonesty) and most importantly due to their refusal to admit these errors in their writings; Tim LaHaye (the same person who wrote the famous Left Behind series which gave him a substantial income) Thomas Ice and Todd Strandberg. They all believe in a pretribulation rapture. I say this so you won’t be deceived by them. 

A Counter-Reformation, the Jesuit Commission and possible events leading up to the false teaching

In 1545, the Catholic Church convened one of its most famous councils in history, which took place north of Rome in a city called Trent. One of the main purposes of this Council was for Catholics to plan a counterattack against Martin Luther and the Protestants. This warfare only confirmed in the minds of Protestants the conviction that Papal Rome was indeed the Beast which would ”make war with the saints” (Revelation 13:7). Therefore a new tactic was needed, something less obvious. This is where the Jesuits come in. On August 15, 1534, Ignatius Loyola founded a secretive Catholic order called the Society of Jesus, also known as the Jesuits. Jesuit priests have been known throughout history as the most wicked political arm of the Roman Catholic Church. At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church gave the Jesuits the specific assignment of destroying Protestantism and bringing people back to the Mother Church. This was to be done not only through the Inquisition and through torture, but also through theology.

At the Council of Trent, the Jesuits were commissioned by the Pope to develop a new interpretation of Scripture that would counteract the Protestant application of the Bible’s Antichrist prophecies to the Roman Catholic Church. Francisco Ribera (1537-1591), a brilliant Jesuit priest and doctor of theology from Spain, basically said, ”Here am I, send me”. In 1590, Ribera published a commentary on the Revelation as a counter-interpretation to the prevailing view among Protestants which identified the Papacy with the Antichrist. Ribera applied all of Revelation but the earliest chapters to the end time rather than to the history of the Church. Antichrist would be a single evil person who would be received by the Jews and would rebuild Jerusalem. Following close behind Francisco Ribera was another brilliant Jesuit scholar, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) of Rome. In his lectures, he agreed with Ribera. The futurists’ school won general acceptance among Catholics. Through the work of these two tricky Jesuit scholars, we might say that a brand new baby was born into the world. In fact, Francisco Ribera has been called the Father of Futurism.

For almost 300 years after the Council of Trent, Jesuit Futurism remained largely inside the realm of Catholicism, but the plan of the Jesuits was that these theological tenets be adopted by Protestants. This adoption process actually began in the early 1800s in England, and from there it spread to America. Dr. Samuel Roffey Maitland (1792-1866), a lawyer and Bible scholar, became a librarian to the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is very likely that one day he discovered Ribera’s commentary in the library. In any event, in 1826 he published a widely-read book attacking the Reformation and supporting Ribera’s idea of a future one-man Antichrist.

After Dr. Maitland came James H. Todd, a professor of Hebrew at the University of Dublin. Todd accepted the futuristic ideas of Maitland, publishing his own supportive pamphlets and books. Then came John Henry Newman (1801-1890), a member of the Church of England and a leader of the famous Oxford Movement (1833-1845). Through the influence of Maitland, Todd, Newman, and others, a definite ”Romeward movement was already arising, destined to sweep away the old Protestant landmarks, as with a flood.

Why many are deceived to believe in the pretribulation rapture today

According to Bob Gundry and Dave MacPherson, Edward Irving  (1792-1834) was most likely the first to publicly make the suggestion of a pretribulational rapture of the Church. When Irving turned to the prophecies, he eventually accepted the one-man Antichrist idea of Todd, Maitland, Bellarmine, and Ribera, yet he went a step furter! As a Presbyterian minister of the Church of Scotland, he attended the prophetic conferences (1826-1830) held by Henry Drummond at Albury Park, England. When Irving first suggested the secret coming of Christ, the controversial idea split those in attendance into factions. Somewhere around 1830, Edward Irving began to teach the unique idea of a two-phase return of Christ, the first phase being a secret rapture prior to the rise of the Antichrist.

In the midst of this growing anti-Protestant climate in England, there arose a man by the name of John Nelson Darby (1800-1882). A brilliant lawyer, pastor, and theologian, he wrote more than 53 books on Bible subjects. He became one of the leaders of a group in Plymouth, England, which became known as the Plymouth Brethren. Darby’s contribution to the development of evangelical theology has been so great that he has been called The Father of Modern Dispensationalism. Yet John Nelson Darby, also became a strong promoter of a Pre-Tribulation Rapture followed by a one-man Antichrist. In his book The Irrationalism of Infidelity (1853), pp. 283-5, he describes in great detail his visit with Margaret MacDonald in her home in Scotland in mid-1830 and talked about her endtime outlook and the Scriptural texts she used for support. Irving and Darby, through the influences of MacDonald, are the main reason to why people have been deceived into believing in pretribulation rapture today since this false idea started with them.  

One of the most important figures in this whole drama is Cyrus Ingerson Scofield (1843-1921), a Kansas lawyer who was greatly influenced by the writings of Darby. In 1909, Scofield published the first edition of his famous Scofield Reference Bible. In the early 1900s, this Bible became so popular in American Protestant Bible schools that it was necessary to print literally millions of copies. Yet, in the much-respected footnotes of this very Bible, Scofield injected large doses of the fluid of Futurism also found in the writings of Darby, Todd, Maitland, Bellarmine, and Ribera. Through the Scofield Bible, the Jesuit child reached young adulthood. The doctrine of an Antichrist still to come was becoming firmly established inside 20th-century American Protestantism.

The Moody Bible Institute and the Dallas Theological Seminary have strongly supported the teachings of John Nelson Darby, and this has continued to fuel Futurism’s growth. Then in the 1970s, Pastor Hal Lindsey, a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, released his blockbuster book The Late Great Planet Earth. This 177-page, easy-to-read volume brought Futurism to the masses of American Christianity, and beyond. The New York Times labeled it ”The number one best-seller of the decade”. Over 30 million copies have been sold, and it has been translated into over 30 languages. Through The Late Great Planet Earth, Jesuit Futurism took a strong hold over the Protestant Christian world.The book and the series Left Behind is now teaching much of the same Jesuit Futurism as Francisco Ribera, which is hiding the real truth about the Antichrist.

FRANCISCO RIBERA (1537-1591), FUTURISM

JESUIT Priest and Doctor of Theology

The Spanish Ribera was a Jesuit, a doctor of theology, who started writing (1585) a 500 page commentary on the book of Revelation six years before his death (1591). In his commentary, Ribera believed that the rapture would occur 45 days before the end of the 3-1/2 year tribulation period (also shades of the future PreWrath doctrine). This was the first time the second coming was split into two separate comings, one for the Church and then one at the end of the age with the raptured Church returning with Christ in wrath.

CARDINAL ROBERT BELLARMINE (1542-1621), FUTURISM
JESUIT Scholar, the most prominent of his time

Also during this period, acclaimed Jesuit apologist Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, wrote ”Polemic Lectures Concerning the Disputed Points of the Christian Belief Against the Heretics of This Time.” His purpose in doing so was to refute the Historic theory of figuring Daniel’s 1260, 1290 and 2300 days as years, relegating these to actual days, e.g., 1260 days, etc. By doing so, the reign of Antichrist was pushed into a future time and negated Catholicism and its pope as the man of sin and his system during his time.

MANUEL DE LACUNZA (1731-1801), FUTURISM, JESUIT Priest

In a book titled, ”Hidden Beast 2,” E. H. Scolfield writes ”There was a Spanish family living in Chili named de Lacunzas. In the year of our Lord, 1731, they had a baby boy. Fifteen years later, the lad was sent to Spain to become a Jesuit priest. Twenty-two years later after that, in 1767, the Jesuits were expelled from Spain because of their brutality. The now Father Manuel de Lacunza y Diaz had to move. He went to Imola, Italy, where he remained for the rest of his life. In Imola, he claimed to be a converted Jew. Under the alias of ‘Rabbi Ben Ezra‘ he wrote a book. The title: ‘The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty.’ In that book he theorized that the church would be ‘raptured’ (taken up to be with the Lord) some 45 days before the real return of Jesus to the Earth. During that 45 days (while the church was in heaven with the Lord) God would judge the wicked still on earth.”

This last sentence shows shades of PreWrath doctrine of today, though that was put together during the 1990s. Lacunza wrote his manuscript in Spanish and it was published in 1812 under a pseudo-name, Juan Josafa [Rabbi] Ben-Ezra. By doing so, his book would more easily be accepted by Protestantism. This proved true as it was placed on Rome’s Index of prohibited books, which only made it sought out by the Protestants.

Lacunza emphasized a return to interpreting prophecy literally from the Futurist viewpoint. He wrote of a future Antichrist and a 1260-day (literal days) tribulation, events just preceding the coming of the Lord. He wrote in opposition to the ‘year-day’ theory of the Historicists (1260 days = 1260 years). He did not promote a pretribulational rapture of the saints at the future time of the Antichrist. His rapture of the saints occurred 45 days before the end of Daniel’s 70th week, probably an influence from Ribera. Lacunza’s book would have a dramatic influence on Edward Irving and his formation of the Pretribulation doctrine. It most likely influenced Irving to add another coming of Christ to the one described in Scripture.

MORGAN EDWARDS (1722-1795), FUTURISM
BAPTIST Minister

Edwards believed many events described in Revelations took place shortly after they were written down, so NATURALLY this made him describe Biblical events in a very ”pretribulationistic” way. He  wrote the earliest paper on the Pretribulation doctrine, using no references to anyone in the past. It was not written as a document to be seriously considered as the following will show:

”The earliest published reference to a pre-tribulation rapture occurred in 1788. Around 1740, a young Baptist named Morgan Edwards wrote an essay for eschatology class on his views of Bible prophecy. This essay was later published in Philadelphia (178 under the following title: Two Academical Exercises on Subjects Bearing the following Titles; Millennium, Last-Novelties. In the article, Edwards made statements which expounded his views concerning a pre-tribulation gathering of the Church. As far as can be determined, Edwards views concerning a pre-trib rapture gained no notoriety nor was this doctrine given any credence in the Church” (The Fallacy of Rapture Theology as revealed by the Word of God by David Redmond).

Tim Warner gives ample reason why Morgan’s writings on a Pretrib rapture were NOT taken seriously by anybody (read more here): 

Do read more well searched documentation from Dave MacPherson and Joe Ortiz .

Christians are warned to not take the mark of the beast or they will lose their salvation

Many Christians will fall away (Matt. 24:9-10, 2 Thess. 2:3) during the latter days, and many will overcome by dying martyrs at that time (Rev. 7:9-17) and that will occur before the rapture (Rev. 20:4-6).

Rev. 7:After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;—13 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

(About the beast) Rev. 13:And it was given unto him to make war with the SAINTS, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.—13:If any man have an ear, let him hear.10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the PATIENCE and the faith of the SAINTS.

Rev. 14:And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, IF any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:12 Here is the PATIENCE of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

Rev. 12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

Why would we be given the following warning if true born against christians will never take the  mark of the Beast – based on the idea that they can never fall away and lose their salvation? Probably because they DO risk to fall away and lose their salvation:

Rev. 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

Common arguments for the pretribulaton rapture

1) Jesus promised the church the following: Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth. (Rev 3:10) Jesus said that he would  keep Christians from this hour of trial coming on the whole earth.

ANSWER: The Greek word found in Rev.3:10 and translated keep you from is also found at John 17:11 and 17:15 and can mean keep THROUGH.  We are not promised that we will not be part of the tribulation but we will be carried through.

2) Jesus will come at an hour where we do not expect him, Mat. 24:44. If He was coming at some time other than pre-trib, we would know when He was coming.

ANSWER: We are told that Jesus return will be much like in the days of Noah, and people were much unprepared for the flood precisely because they were wicked sinners who did not listen to Noah’s warnings. If we adhere to the warnings (”watch therefore”) then we will be more prepared, just like Noah was. When Jesus returns, then there will indeed be sheep and goats that will suddenly be separated. We must also compare with other Scriptures:

Mark 13:23 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,25 And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.26 And THEN shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

According to this Scripture, the gathering of the elect from earth to heaven (the rapture) cannot happen until first there is a radical change in the way we currently view the sun, moon and stars. That change will occur after the tribulation. We are actually assured the day will NOT come unexpectedly IF we make sure we are prepared for it:

Luke 21:34 And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.

3) In Luke 21:36 Jesus taught Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.”

ANSWER: What the saints will escape is what comes after the rapture, which is the wrath of God IF they take heed and obey Jesus prior to it.  The tribulation is not the wrath of God. The wrath of God begins at the overlapping point of Rev. 11:18 and Rev. 6:17, which is after the tribulation.

Rev. 11:18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

Rev. 6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

4) The church will depart before the antichrist is revealed as per 2 Thess. 2:7,8

ANSWER: The following can be read prior to this verse:

2 Thess. 2:Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition

It doesn’t say that the church will depart prior to the rapture. At least two events must precede the gathering of the saints to heaven (the rapture)  (1) apostasy and (2) the revealing of the antichrist.

The Bible predicts a ”great Apostasy” before the rapture occurs in 2 Thess 2. If the rapture happens at the beginning of the tribulation, then we should not to find any mention of a trumpet after the tribulation begins. But we do.

Mt 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken—31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Mt 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. 

1Pe 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

The city of the new Jerusalem will come down to earth and the saints will already be here on earth.