-------------
Thanks for the response.
(1) My question was:
You said (and I quote)
Jesus, Peter, Paul, John and the Hebrew author describe
the atonement process as a literal ransom/kidnapping scenario
and not some like a ransom scenario.
(NIV)
Mark 10:45
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve,
and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
(NIV)
1 Timothy 2:6
who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.
(NIV)
Hebrews 9:15
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that
he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
(NRSV)
1 Peter 1:18
You know that you
were ransomed from the futile ways inherited
from your ancestors, not with perishable things like silver or gold,
(NRSV)
Revelation 5:9
They sing a new song: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slaughtered and by your blood
you ransomed for God saints from every tribe and language and people and nation;
I must have misunderstood your original comment because
it was the "kidnapping" statement that I could not understand.
I (of course) agree that Jesus PAID for "His Sheep" and, in that
sense, He was a "ransom"... but I did not (and still do not)
understand the "kidnapping" comment because Jesus
willingly PAID the price.
If there is a "kidnapping" component... then maybe you could
try to explain that to me because I just don't see that.
But I do agree with the ransom.
You say your objection to the idea is: “because Jesus willingly PAID the price”. Put most payers of a ransom are “willing” to pay the ransom to get their children back or they would not pay it.
The word “ransom” is used several ways in scripture especially in the Old Testament and can mean a reasonable payable tax paid by the individual (the temple tax could be called a ransom payment), but the ransom payment God/Christ made with Christ going to the cross is an unbelievable huge sacrificial payment that could never be made by the individual, so it fits the ransom payment in a kidnapping.
The people at the time would have been very familiar with huge kidnap ransom payments (Julius Caesar was kidnapped at 21 and a ransom was paid for his release).
The real meaning of the New Testament word “ransom” is better seen in the use of the word “redeemed” which has a much more specific use and Strong's Concordance points it out with only one meaning given:
apolutrósis: a release effected by payment of ransom
Original Word: ἀπολύτρωσις, εως, ἡ
Definition: a release effected by payment of ransom
Usage: release effected by payment of ransom; redemption, deliverance.
Are you questioning if the ransom payment of Christ’s life and crucifixion effected the release (redemption) of the Child to allow the child to enter the Kingdom?
The payment being huge, someone other than the person being redeemed making the sacrificial payment, a child being redeemed to go to his/her Father and the children being held back from their Father, all fits a kidnapping scenario, with the only exception of a kidnapper being specifically identified.
Yes, the word kidnapping is not used in scripture, but Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder were a ransom payment which did redeem us (set us free), so what or who was holding us back? People like to blame our lack of freedom on: satan, the Old Law, sin, evil in the world, Adam & Eve, and even God, but we the sinner are holding ourselves back from the Love of God by our just not turning (repenting like the prodigal son), so we can not experience God’s Love in forgiveness.
Tell me this, is there some false teaching in my description:
When you go to a nonbeliever, you are not trying to sell them on a book, theology, doctrine or culture, but you are trying to get them to accept: “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified” and if he/she accepts Jesus Christ and him crucified, a child is released to enter the Kingdom, yet if the individual does not accept “Jesus Christ and Him crucified” a child is kept from entering the Kingdom. Does this not sound like a kidnapping scenario with “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified” being the Bible’s description of the ransom payment?
(2) I said:
I am not aware of any Scripture that talks about "accepting"
Jesus. Can you please cite the chapter and verse that you
think teaches this doctrine.
You said:
The word “accepting” is not used much, but words like:
“Whosoever”, “everyone”, “anyone”, “all who”, “if you”
and so on.
I don't think the word "accepting" is "not used much"...
I think it is never used AT ALL for a very good reason.
As to words like "whosoever" and "everyone" and
"anyone" and "all who" and "if you" and so on...
must all be examined within the CONTEXT of the
use and within the harmony of all related Scripture.
In fact, in most (or all) of the cases that I have seen
the CONTEXT is often talking about those who have
already been regenerated... while "teachers" often
try to apply it to people who are still unsaved.
But let us look specifically and see if you can come up with a better word to describe what the unbeliever is doing, because “accepting” seems to be the very best word to describe what he is doing.
Again, I do not think that "accepting" is an appropriate word
for the process... but am willing to be corrected by the BIBLE
if shown otherwise. In my view the act of salvation is one
where the person is completely passive.
In other words, all (real) repentance is the RESULT
(and not the cause) of regeneration.
Eph 2:8-9
For by grace are ye saved through faith;
and that [faith is] not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.
We only have a few examples in scripture of actually teaching
non-Christians who then go on to accept or reject the teaching,
but on Pentecost (Acts 2) we have Peter’s giving an excellent
“Christ and Him crucified” sermon.
Acts 2: 40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
If you go back to Peter’s sermon the “message” was “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified”.
Peter goes on in Acts 3 preaching a very similar sermon which resulted in Acts 4: 4 But many who heard the message believed; so the number of men who believed grew to about five thousand.
My KJV uses the word "received" instead of "accepted" but I think
that's a difference without distinction. My POINT is simple, that
the CONTEXT of passages like this must be harmonized with
all related passages... including this:
I have studied (really studied) the Bible for about 50 years and
realize that it teaches those who are "ordained" believe... and
those who are "chosen" are saved... and those who are
"elected" inherit eternal life.
The Arminian gospel preached in almost all churches today says
MEN decide to "accept" (or reject) salvation before regeneration.
And THAT is the basis for my question to you about your use of
the word "accepting".
You say I think it (accept) is never used AT ALL for a very good reason.
Yet I pointed out when it was used: Acts 2: 40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
Some translations do use “believed” or “received” but it all means the same thing.
Yes, lots of times in the New Testament the author is addressing those he is sending the letter to which are Christians and not non-Christians, but we do have some non-Christians being addressed, who need to accept the Message to be saved.
You said:
Wait just a minute: “Just because you verbally say:
“Jesus is Lord” does not mean you have accepted
Christ as your Lord.”
You said:
The word “accepting” is not used much, but words like:
“Whosoever”, “everyone”, “anyone”, “all who”, “if you”
and so on.
I am not having a problem with Acts and in Acts we do have more non-Christians being addressed then you do in the Letters to churches which are written directly to Christians (elect).
I have no problem harmonizing non believer “accepting or rejecting” the message in all places with Acts 2?
Jesus gives us examples concerning the Kingdom, where we are in now, which the King/Master/Ruler invites virtually everyone to His Banquet and yet some accept the invitation and some refuse the invitation. The king does not go out and kidnap His guests and yet everyone at the banquet was first invited (drawn) by the King.
(4) Assuming you believe the Bible teaches men "accept"
or "reject" salvation - then can you show me anywhere in
the Bible that teaches that the words you mentioned above
apply to UNSAVED men? And harmonize with all RELATED
Scriptures.
For example: When John 6 says that NO MAN can come
to Christ unless the Father FIRST "draws" them and ALL MEN
the Father draws "shall come" and Christ will lose NONE of
His Sheep... then a passage saying "whosoever" is limited
to those who CAN because they have been regenerated.
Another example: When Romans 3 says that NO MAN
"seeks" God (no, not even one) then passages that show
a man seeking God are showing someone who God "draws"
or someone who is already regenerated.
Another example: When Romans 9 says that God CREATES
some men to be "vessels of mercy" (they can "believe") but
when He CREATES others to be "vessels of destruction" then
God does not "draw" them and they cannot "receive" or
"believe".
So... are you aware of any passages that teach the words
you mentioned apply to UNSAVED men?
...
There is a lot taken out of context here that need lengthy explanations such as Ro.9
Romans 9
Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. Paul uses an ancient form of rhetoric known as diatribe (imaginary debate) asking questions and most of the time giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. Paul’s method goes beyond just a general diatribe and follows closely to the diatribes used in the individual laments in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament, which the Jewish Christians would have known extensively. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.
The main topic repeated extensively in Romans is the division in the Christian house churches in Rome between the Jews and Gentile Christians. You can just look up how many times Jews and gentiles are referred to see this as a huge issue.
The main question (a diatribe question) in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!
This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born, but remember in all of Paul’s diatribes he begins before, just after or before and just after with strong support for the wrong answer (this makes it more of a debate and giving the opposition the first shot as done in all diatribes).
Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau? Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?
If God treaded you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common and others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?
This is the issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.
Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”
Who is the “one of you” is this Jewish Christian (elect) or Gentile Christian (elect) or is this “non-elect” individual (this “letter” is written to Christians and not non-Christians)?
Can Jews say they cannot be blamed for failing in their honored position or would it be the Gentiles that would say they cannot be blamed since they were not in the honored position?
Is it really significant when it comes to what really counts, if you are born a gentile or Jew in first century Rome?
Are there issues and problems with being a first century Jew and was this a problem for Paul?
The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison (the Gentiles).
How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.
Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the born Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.
Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!
The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.
If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.
Rm 9: 22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?
This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” were created for destruction (they were not made from the start by the Potter “clay pigeons”). Everything that leaves the potter’s shop is of great quality. Those vessels for destruction can come from either the common group or the honor group, but God is being patient with them that will eventually be destroyed. The vessels God does develop great wrath against, will be readied for destruction, but how did they become worthy of destruction since they left the potter’s shop with his mark on them? Any vessel (honorable or common) that becomes damaged is not worthy of the potter’s signature and He would want it destroyed.
To understand this as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel.
2 Tim. 2: 20 In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for special purposes and some for common use. 21 Those who cleanse themselves from the latter will be instruments for special purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work.
Important to note is the fact: the dishonorable vessel can cleanse themselves and become vessels of honor.
That is a short explanation, since you really need to study all of Romans especially chapters 9, 10 and 11. Also please look at individual laments in the Psalms and diatribes in general, I really cut those short.
