What is it about?

redleghunter said:

The wages of sin is death. Who paid the wages of sin for us?

Click to expand...

In context is this talking about our physical death or spiritual death?

redleghunter said:

I see the 1578 argument by the Unitarian Pelagian, Faustus Socinus, has made a comeback. His De Jesu Christo Servatore (Of Jesus Christ the Saviour).

Click to expand...

Not familiar with any having similar ideas other then those in scripture.

bling said:

OK, Christ unjustly suffered the same disciplining punishment for sin, but it was not done instead of us. You might do a word study on all the greek words translated "for" in the English.

Click to expand...

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Hebrews 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

There was no way for us to pay our own sin debt, because we are flawed, so Jesus paid it on our behalf.

bling said:

OK, Christ unjustly suffered the same disciplining punishment for sin, but it was not done instead of us. You might do a word study on all the greek words translated "for" in the English.

Click to expand...

I don’t ascribe to lexical root word fallacies. Context of the passage matters in translations. In every English version done by committee “for” means “for” and the few versions that use “on behalf of us” means “on the behalf of us.”

1 Peter 3:
18For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;


Romans 6:
20For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.21Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death. 22But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. 23For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.



1 Peter 2:
21For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, 22WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; 23and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; 24and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. 25For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.


And lest we forget it is by Grace through faith we are reckoned righteous.

by faith alone in Christ alone.

• Rom. 3:28, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law."
• Rom. 4:3, "For what does the Scripture say? "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."
• Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness."
• Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."
• Gal. 3:8, "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "All the nations shall be blessed in you."
• Gal. 3:24, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith."

And Whose Rightiousness?

2 Corinthians 5:
21He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.


He became a curse for us:


Galatians 3:
10For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM.” 11Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.” 12However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM.” 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON ATREE”— 14in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.


This also: The Blood of Christ cleanses us from our sins.


Colossians 1:20

Acts of the Apostles 20:28

Ephesians 1:7

Hebrews 9:14

Hebrews 9:22

John 1:7

Hebrews 10:19

Hebrews 13:12

Leviticus 17:11

Luke 22:20

Matthew 26:28

Revelation 1:5

Revelation 7:14

Revelation 12:11

Romans 5:9

Romans 3:24-25

1 Peter 1:18-19

1 Corinthians 11:24-30

And I would highly recommend reading Leviticus 16 and Isaiah 53 with the above in mind.

bling said:

In context is this talking about our physical death or spiritual death?

Click to expand...

Paul addresses this no? Jesus died for our sins and then rose from the dead as the first fruits of eternal life.

bling said:

Not familiar with any having similar ideas other then those in scripture.

Click to expand...

He made the same argument as you that Christ’s death was not an Atonement.

bling said:

Not familiar with any having similar ideas other then those in scripture.

Click to expand...

Our Christian history shows even in 19th century hymns non Calvinist learners as Thomas H Gill who came from a Unitarian family, renounced their faith and became Wesleyan crafted this hymn:

1 O mystery of love Divine
That thought and thanks o'erpowers!
Lord Jesus, was our portion Thine,
And is Thy portion ours?

2 Emmanuel, didst Thou take our place
To set us in Thine own?
Didst Thou our low estate embrace
To lift us to Thy throne?

3 Didst Thou fulfil each righteous deed.
God's perfect will express,
That we the unfaithful ones might plead
Thy perfect faithfulness?

4 On Thy pure soul did dread and gloom
In that drear garden rise?
And ours the brightness and the bloom
Of Thine own Paradise?

5 For Thee the Father's hidden face?
For Thee the bitter cry?
For us the Father's endless grace,
The song of victory?

6 Our load of sin and misery
Didst Thou the Sinless bear?
Thy spotless robe of purity
Do we the sinners wear?

7 Lord Jesus, is it even so?
Have we been lovèd thus?
What love can we on Thee bestow
Who hast exchanged with us?

8 Thou, who our very place didst take,
Dwell in our very heart;
Thou, who Thy portion ours dost make,
Thyself, Thyself, impart.

GingerBeer said:

Matthew 26:36-46 36 Then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to the disciples, "Sit here while I go over there and pray." 37 He took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and became anguished and distressed. 38 Then he said to them, "My soul is deeply grieved, even to the point of death. Remain here and stay awake with me." 39 Going a little farther, he threw himself down with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if possible, let this cup pass from me! Yet not what I will, but what you will." 40 Then he came to the disciples and found them sleeping. He said to Peter, "So, couldn't you stay awake with me for one hour? 41 Stay awake and pray that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." 42 He went away a second time and prayed, "My Father, if this cup cannot be taken away unless I drink it, your will must be done." 43 He came again and found them sleeping; they could not keep their eyes open. 44 So leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same thing once more. 45 Then he came to the disciples and said to them, "Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour is approaching, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 46 Get up, let us go. Look! My betrayer is approaching!"

Why did Jesus pray that way? What is it about?

Click to expand...

Jesus fulfilled the Two Great Commandments of loving God and neighbor (enemies too) as his own-self.

“Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22:37–40) (KJV 1900)

Jesus fulfilled the Two Great Commandments which also fulfilled the Ten. He loved God with all his body, offering it up in sinless perfection on the cross, the worst death any sinner could die. He loved God with all his soul in Gethsemane saying "thy will be done, not mine". And he loved even his enemies as he did himself. He died in their place as they blindly wrenched the last drop of blood from him. While he asked God to forgive them for killing him.

Doug Melven said:

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Hebrews 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

There was no way for us to pay our own sin debt, because we are flawed, so Jesus paid it on our behalf.

Click to expand...

This will take lots of words.

You are very right to say: “There was no way for us to pay our own sin debt”!!! It is impossible to “pay” the price for offending the Creator of the universe, but is God’s Love great enough to forgive that offence? To suggest any thing was “payable” means it is not as great an offence that is unpayable and God’s Love is not as great as it could be.

1 Peter 3:18 does not say “Christ suffered instead of us”, but conveys the idea of His suffering because of our sinning. The “for” in “the just for the unjust” is the Greek word “hyper” translated about (5), above (4), behalf (22), beyond (4), concerning (3), exceed (1), more so (1), more than (5), over (2), regard (1), sake (9), sakes (1), than (3) and not the Greek word “anti” which can mean (a) instead of, in return for, over against, opposite, in exchange for, as a substitute for, on my behalf, (c) wherefore, because.

2 Cor. 5:21 in the NIV and has as a footnote: b.2 Corinthians 5:21 Or be a sin offering since

The word translated “sin” just has to do with sin and does not mean just “sin” but you have to come up with something to explain it, so the NIV translators just give you another possibility.

What do you think: “to be sin on our behalf” means, since other places we know Christ is our sin offering and would fit the explanation in the Greek? Isaiah 53:10 supports the definition of it being a “guilt offering” and not making him “sin” meaning something else?

Heb. 9:12 says nothing about Christ being our substitute?

Christ’s atoning sacrifice is described by Christ, Paul, John, Peter and the writer of Hebrews as a literal ransom payment and not just like a ransom payment, I totally disagree with the “Ransom Theory of Atonement” since God owes satan nothing and it would even be wrong for God to pay His enemy when God could just as easily and safely save His children without paying satan, but to have the ransom paid to God is even more bizarre, since God is not the undeserving kidnapper nor would He be holding His own children. If we say there is no kidnapper or the kidnapper is some intangible like sin or death does not make since either, so who is the kidnapper? We can agree on the torture, humiliation and murder of Christ being the huge payment, Christ/God being the sacrificial payers, and since only children can go into the Kingdom, the child within each of us is freed to go to where God presides. So who is the criminal holding the child back from the Kingdom and if that criminal refuses to accept the ransom payment will the child go free (will atonement take place)?

Practically: When you go up to an unbeliever you try to sell them on “Jesus Christ and Him crucified” to get him/her to accept that, but that is another way of saying “getting them to accept the ransom payment”.

Logically: The unbelieving mature adult is the one holding the child within himself back from the Kingdom (God), that describes a kidnapper, faith (trust) in Christ and what Christ did, is what’s needed (accepting the payment), so this provides the logic behind the need for faith in the atonement process. It is not that Christ went to the cross for just some and not all, but man has a part to play in the process which limits the completion of the atonement. This also explains why the refusing of this huge ransom payment would result in hell.

Paul in Ro. 3:25 giving the extreme contrast between the way sins where handle prior to the cross and after the cross, so if they were actually handled the same way “by the cross” there would be no contrast, only a time factor, but Paul said (forgiven) sins prior to the cross where left “unpunished” (NIV), but that also should mean the forgiven “sinner” after the cross were punished.

From Romans 3: 25 Paul tells us: God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. …

Another way of saying this would be “God offers the ransom payment (Christ Crucified and the blood that flowed from Him) to those that have the faith to receive that ransom. A lack of faith results in the refusal of the ransom payment (Christ crucified).

God is not the undeserving kidnapper nor is satan, but the unbeliever is himself is holding back the child of God from the Father, that child that is within every one of us.

Paul goes on to explain:

Ro. 3: 25 …He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished

I do not like the word “unpunished” but would use “undisciplined”.

So prior to the cross repentant forgiven people (saved individuals) could not be fairly and justly disciplined for the rebellious disobedience, but after the cross if we repent (come to our senses and turn to God) we can be fairly and justly disciplined and yet survive.

God and Christ would have personally preferred Christ’s blood to remain flowing through his veins, but it is I that need to have that blood outside of Christ flowing over me and in me cleansing my heart. I need to feel that blood and know it is cleansing me.

If you think about the crucifixion, you would realize at the time, Christ was on the cross God in heaven out of empathy/Love for Christ would be experience an even greater pain than Christ. We as our Love grows and our realization of what we personally caused Christ to go through will feel the death blow to our hearts (Acts 2:37). We will experience the greatest pain we could experience and still live, which is the way God is disciplining us today and for all the right reasons because Loving discipline correctly accepted results in a wondrous relationship with our parent. (We can now comfortably feel justified standing before God.)

Look at what is being preached to nonbelievers by Disciples of Christ from Acts 2 to at least Acts 9 and we have lots of Christ crucified sermons being given to really go after the sinner’s heart with the responsibility of persecuting and murdering the Messiah, but nothing said about Christ taking their place. Christ does not tell Saul/Paul I took your place on the cross, Stephan’s sermon to the Pharisees is not “Christ took your place” and the sermons with Acts 2 and after in Jerusalem could be described mainly as: “Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified…”.

redleghunter said:

I don’t ascribe to lexical root word fallacies. Context of the passage matters in translations. In every English version done by committee “for” means “for” and the few versions that use “on behalf of us” means “on the behalf of us.”

1 Peter 3:
18For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;


Romans 6:
20For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.21Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death. 22But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. 23For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.



1 Peter 2:
21For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, 22WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; 23and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; 24and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. 25For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.


And lest we forget it is by Grace through faith we are reckoned righteous.

by faith alone in Christ alone.

• Rom. 3:28, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law."
• Rom. 4:3, "For what does the Scripture say? "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."
• Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness."
• Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."
• Gal. 3:8, "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "All the nations shall be blessed in you."
• Gal. 3:24, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith."

And Whose Rightiousness?

2 Corinthians 5:
21He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.


He became a curse for us:


Galatians 3:
10For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM.” 11Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.” 12However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM.” 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON ATREE”— 14in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.


This also: The Blood of Christ cleanses us from our sins.


Colossians 1:20

Acts of the Apostles 20:28

Ephesians 1:7

Hebrews 9:14

Hebrews 9:22

John 1:7

Hebrews 10:19

Hebrews 13:12

Leviticus 17:11

Luke 22:20

Matthew 26:28

Revelation 1:5

Revelation 7:14

Revelation 12:11

Romans 5:9

Romans 3:24-25

1 Peter 1:18-19

1 Corinthians 11:24-30

And I would highly recommend reading Leviticus 16 and Isaiah 53 with the above in mind.

Click to expand...

I have read all these scriptures but you left off Lev. 5 where I would start with you if you want to go through everyone.
A great deal is made of the fact “for” is used which those wanting to support the substitution idea assume means “instead of” and act like that is the obvious meaning.

Prepositions do change meanings over time and it is hard to say what the exact meaning was in the first century Jerusalem area, so I cannot “prove” anything, but can look at the issues:

There are lots of words in the Greek translated “for” in the English. They include peri (which means "about" or "concerning"), dia ("because of" or "on account of"), and by far the most common, huper ("for," "on behalf of," or "for the sake of"). None of these prepositions necessarily invokes the meaning "in the place of." The Greek word “anti” translate “for” sometimes conveys the meaning “instead of” but could mean “in exchange, in payment for, because of and similar meanings.” According the Strong’s commentary “anti” is used 22 times in the NT, but only twice in context with atonement (really once recorded twice) “...my life a ransom for many” but this does not help because “anti” in other places conveys the idea of “payment for or to” and Christ is saying it is “anti” you which does not tell us who is the kidnapper receiving the ransom, so it could be payment to you. Why was “anti”, which was available, not used any other time in the context of atonement to really show substitution if it was substitution?

redleghunter said:

Paul addresses this no? Jesus died for our sins and then rose from the dead as the first fruits of eternal life.

Click to expand...

I'm asking you?

redleghunter said:

He made the same argument as you that Christ’s death was not an Atonement.

Click to expand...

Christ was the atonement sacrifice which would include "dying" in that respect, so what was completed before His death when Christ said it was done?

GingerBeer said:

What I have read in scripture is that Jesus died a just man for the benefit of unjust men & women. That he demonstrated God's love by willingly dying for people who were his enemies. That he loves human beings so much that he came into the world to redeem men and women. is that what you meant when you wrote "It is not what you have heard"?

Click to expand...

I fully agree with that. People die for others all the time for other, but like you said this is for his enemies, and I would add to be tortured humiliated and murdered, when you at any time can call a legion of angels down and you are innocent is one of a kind Love.

What I am talking about is: Christ’s atoning sacrifice is described by Christ, Paul, John, Peter and the writer of Hebrews as a literal ransom payment and not just like a ransom payment, I totally disagree with the “Ransom Theory of Atonement” since God owes satan nothing and it would even be wrong for God to pay His enemy when God could just as easily and safely save His children without paying satan, but to have the ransom paid to God is even more bizarre, since God is not the undeserving kidnapper nor would He be holding His own children. If we say there is no kidnapper or the kidnapper is some intangible like sin or death does not make since either, so who is the kidnapper? We can agree on the torture, humiliation and murder of Christ being the huge payment, Christ/God being the sacrificial payers, and since only children can go into the Kingdom, the child within each of us is freed to go to where God presides. So who is the criminal holding the child back from the Kingdom and if that criminal refuses to accept the ransom payment will the child go free (will atonement take place)?

Practically: When you go up to an unbeliever you try to sell them on “Jesus Christ and Him crucified” to get him/her to accept that, but that is another way of saying “getting them to accept the ransom payment”.

Logically: The unbelieving mature adult is the one holding the child within himself back from the Kingdom (God), that describes a kidnapper, faith (trust) in Christ and what Christ did, is what’s needed (accepting the payment), so this provides the logic behind the need for faith in the atonement process. It is not that Christ went to the cross for just some and not all, but man has a part to play in the process which limits the completion of the atonement. This also explains why the refusing of this huge ransom payment would result in hell.

Paul in Ro. 3:25 giving the extreme contrast between the way sins where handle prior to the cross and after the cross, so if they were actually handled the same way “by the cross” there would be no contrast, only a time factor, but Paul said (forgiven) sins prior to the cross where left “unpunished” (NIV), but that also should mean the forgiven “sinner” after the cross were punished.

From Romans 3: 25 Paul tells us: God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. …

Another way of saying this would be “God offers the ransom payment (Christ Crucified and the blood that flowed from Him) to those that have the faith to receive that ransom. A lack of faith results in the refusal of the ransom payment (Christ crucified).

God is not the undeserving kidnapper nor is satan, but the unbeliever is himself is holding back the child of God from the Father, that child that is within every one of us.

Paul goes on to explain:

Ro. 3: 25 …He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished

I do not like the word “unpunished” but would use “undisciplined”.

So prior to the cross repentant forgiven people (saved individuals) could not be fairly and justly disciplined for the rebellious disobedience, but after the cross if we repent (come to our senses and turn to God) we can be fairly and justly disciplined and yet survive.

God and Christ would have personally preferred Christ’s blood to remain flowing through his veins, but it is I that need to have that blood outside of Christ flowing over me and in me cleansing my heart. I need to feel that blood and know it is cleansing me.

If you think about the crucifixion, you would realize at the time, Christ was on the cross God in heaven out of empathy/Love for Christ would be experience an even greater pain than Christ. We as our Love grows and our realization of what we personally caused Christ to go through will feel the death blow to our hearts (Acts 2:37). We will experience the greatest pain we could experience and still live, which is the way God is disciplining us today and for all the right reasons because Loving discipline correctly accepted results in a wondrous relationship with our parent. (We can now comfortably feel justified standing before God.)

bling said:

This will take lots of words.

You are very right to say: “There was no way for us to pay our own sin debt”!!! It is impossible to “pay” the price for offending the Creator of the universe, but is God’s Love great enough to forgive that offence? To suggest any thing was “payable” means it is not as great an offence that is unpayable and God’s Love is not as great as it could be.

1 Peter 3:18 does not say “Christ suffered instead of us”, but conveys the idea of His suffering because of our sinning. The “for” in “the just for the unjust” is the Greek word “hyper” translated about (5), above (4), behalf (22), beyond (4), concerning (3), exceed (1), more so (1), more than (5), over (2), regard (1), sake (9), sakes (1), than (3) and not the Greek word “anti” which can mean (a) instead of, in return for, over against, opposite, in exchange for, as a substitute for, on my behalf, (c) wherefore, because.

2 Cor. 5:21 in the NIV and has as a footnote: b.2 Corinthians 5:21 Or be a sin offering since

The word translated “sin” just has to do with sin and does not mean just “sin” but you have to come up with something to explain it, so the NIV translators just give you another possibility.

What do you think: “to be sin on our behalf” means, since other places we know Christ is our sin offering and would fit the explanation in the Greek? Isaiah 53:10 supports the definition of it being a “guilt offering” and not making him “sin” meaning something else?

Heb. 9:12 says nothing about Christ being our substitute?

Christ’s atoning sacrifice is described by Christ, Paul, John, Peter and the writer of Hebrews as a literal ransom payment and not just like a ransom payment, I totally disagree with the “Ransom Theory of Atonement” since God owes satan nothing and it would even be wrong for God to pay His enemy when God could just as easily and safely save His children without paying satan, but to have the ransom paid to God is even more bizarre, since God is not the undeserving kidnapper nor would He be holding His own children. If we say there is no kidnapper or the kidnapper is some intangible like sin or death does not make since either, so who is the kidnapper? We can agree on the torture, humiliation and murder of Christ being the huge payment, Christ/God being the sacrificial payers, and since only children can go into the Kingdom, the child within each of us is freed to go to where God presides. So who is the criminal holding the child back from the Kingdom and if that criminal refuses to accept the ransom payment will the child go free (will atonement take place)?

Practically: When you go up to an unbeliever you try to sell them on “Jesus Christ and Him crucified” to get him/her to accept that, but that is another way of saying “getting them to accept the ransom payment”.

Logically: The unbelieving mature adult is the one holding the child within himself back from the Kingdom (God), that describes a kidnapper, faith (trust) in Christ and what Christ did, is what’s needed (accepting the payment), so this provides the logic behind the need for faith in the atonement process. It is not that Christ went to the cross for just some and not all, but man has a part to play in the process which limits the completion of the atonement. This also explains why the refusing of this huge ransom payment would result in hell.

Paul in Ro. 3:25 giving the extreme contrast between the way sins where handle prior to the cross and after the cross, so if they were actually handled the same way “by the cross” there would be no contrast, only a time factor, but Paul said (forgiven) sins prior to the cross where left “unpunished” (NIV), but that also should mean the forgiven “sinner” after the cross were punished.

From Romans 3: 25 Paul tells us: God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. …

Another way of saying this would be “God offers the ransom payment (Christ Crucified and the blood that flowed from Him) to those that have the faith to receive that ransom. A lack of faith results in the refusal of the ransom payment (Christ crucified).

God is not the undeserving kidnapper nor is satan, but the unbeliever is himself is holding back the child of God from the Father, that child that is within every one of us.

Paul goes on to explain:

Ro. 3: 25 …He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished

I do not like the word “unpunished” but would use “undisciplined”.

So prior to the cross repentant forgiven people (saved individuals) could not be fairly and justly disciplined for the rebellious disobedience, but after the cross if we repent (come to our senses and turn to God) we can be fairly and justly disciplined and yet survive.

God and Christ would have personally preferred Christ’s blood to remain flowing through his veins, but it is I that need to have that blood outside of Christ flowing over me and in me cleansing my heart. I need to feel that blood and know it is cleansing me.

If you think about the crucifixion, you would realize at the time, Christ was on the cross God in heaven out of empathy/Love for Christ would be experience an even greater pain than Christ. We as our Love grows and our realization of what we personally caused Christ to go through will feel the death blow to our hearts (Acts 2:37). We will experience the greatest pain we could experience and still live, which is the way God is disciplining us today and for all the right reasons because Loving discipline correctly accepted results in a wondrous relationship with our parent. (We can now comfortably feel justified standing before God.)

Look at what is being preached to nonbelievers by Disciples of Christ from Acts 2 to at least Acts 9 and we have lots of Christ crucified sermons being given to really go after the sinner’s heart with the responsibility of persecuting and murdering the Messiah, but nothing said about Christ taking their place. Christ does not tell Saul/Paul I took your place on the cross, Stephan’s sermon to the Pharisees is not “Christ took your place” and the sermons with Acts 2 and after in Jerusalem could be described mainly as: “Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified…”.

Click to expand...

All of the above to just point out you don’t hold to the Pauline epistles.

bling said:

I have read all these scriptures but you left off Lev. 5 where I would start with you if you want to go through everyone.
A great deal is made of the fact “for” is used which those wanting to support the substitution idea assume means “instead of” and act like that is the obvious meaning.

Click to expand...

Because “for” means “for” and “in place of” does not mean “instead of.”

bling said:

Prepositions do change meanings over time and it is hard to say what the exact meaning was in the first century Jerusalem area, so I cannot “prove” anything, but can look at the issues:

There are lots of words in the Greek translated “for” in the English. They include peri (which means "about" or "concerning"), dia ("because of" or "on account of"), and by far the most common, huper ("for," "on behalf of," or "for the sake of"). None of these prepositions necessarily invokes the meaning "in the place of." The Greek word “anti” translate “for” sometimes conveys the meaning “instead of” but could mean “in exchange, in payment for, because of and similar meanings.”

Click to expand...

Sure there’s loads of words which can be used for Yaled as well. Context matters. Again I don’t subscribe there was some conspiracy of translators wanting to promote a theology. I’m not going to also subscribe to the root word fallacy where “for” is woodenly or free wheeling.

I truly can’t believe given the context of every passage I produced is not explanatory and the context is not clear enough.

bling said:

Why was “anti”, which was available, not used any other time in the context of atonement to really show substitution if it was substitution?

Click to expand...

Perhaps because scholars of Hebrew and Greek don’t use lexical aides like a Chinese menu?

bling said:

Christ was the atonement sacrifice which would include "dying" in that respect, so what was completed before His death when Christ said it was done?

Click to expand...

This is not a clear statement. Please explain.

bling said:

This will take lots of words.

You are very right to say: “There was no way for us to pay our own sin debt”!!! It is impossible to “pay” the price for offending the Creator of the universe, but is God’s Love great enough to forgive that offence? To suggest any thing was “payable” means it is not as great an offence that is unpayable and God’s Love is not as great as it could be.

1 Peter 3:18 does not say “Christ suffered instead of us”, but conveys the idea of His suffering because of our sinning. The “for” in “the just for the unjust” is the Greek word “hyper” translated about (5), above (4), behalf (22), beyond (4), concerning (3), exceed (1), more so (1), more than (5), over (2), regard (1), sake (9), sakes (1), than (3) and not the Greek word “anti” which can mean (a) instead of, in return for, over against, opposite, in exchange for, as a substitute for, on my behalf, (c) wherefore, because.

2 Cor. 5:21 in the NIV and has as a footnote: b.2 Corinthians 5:21 Or be a sin offering since

The word translated “sin” just has to do with sin and does not mean just “sin” but you have to come up with something to explain it, so the NIV translators just give you another possibility.

What do you think: “to be sin on our behalf” means, since other places we know Christ is our sin offering and would fit the explanation in the Greek? Isaiah 53:10 supports the definition of it being a “guilt offering” and not making him “sin” meaning something else?

Heb. 9:12 says nothing about Christ being our substitute?

Christ’s atoning sacrifice is described by Christ, Paul, John, Peter and the writer of Hebrews as a literal ransom payment and not just like a ransom payment, I totally disagree with the “Ransom Theory of Atonement” since God owes satan nothing and it would even be wrong for God to pay His enemy when God could just as easily and safely save His children without paying satan, but to have the ransom paid to God is even more bizarre, since God is not the undeserving kidnapper nor would He be holding His own children. If we say there is no kidnapper or the kidnapper is some intangible like sin or death does not make since either, so who is the kidnapper? We can agree on the torture, humiliation and murder of Christ being the huge payment, Christ/God being the sacrificial payers, and since only children can go into the Kingdom, the child within each of us is freed to go to where God presides. So who is the criminal holding the child back from the Kingdom and if that criminal refuses to accept the ransom payment will the child go free (will atonement take place)?

Practically: When you go up to an unbeliever you try to sell them on “Jesus Christ and Him crucified” to get him/her to accept that, but that is another way of saying “getting them to accept the ransom payment”.

Logically: The unbelieving mature adult is the one holding the child within himself back from the Kingdom (God), that describes a kidnapper, faith (trust) in Christ and what Christ did, is what’s needed (accepting the payment), so this provides the logic behind the need for faith in the atonement process. It is not that Christ went to the cross for just some and not all, but man has a part to play in the process which limits the completion of the atonement. This also explains why the refusing of this huge ransom payment would result in hell.

Paul in Ro. 3:25 giving the extreme contrast between the way sins where handle prior to the cross and after the cross, so if they were actually handled the same way “by the cross” there would be no contrast, only a time factor, but Paul said (forgiven) sins prior to the cross where left “unpunished” (NIV), but that also should mean the forgiven “sinner” after the cross were punished.

From Romans 3: 25 Paul tells us: God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. …

Another way of saying this would be “God offers the ransom payment (Christ Crucified and the blood that flowed from Him) to those that have the faith to receive that ransom. A lack of faith results in the refusal of the ransom payment (Christ crucified).

God is not the undeserving kidnapper nor is satan, but the unbeliever is himself is holding back the child of God from the Father, that child that is within every one of us.

Paul goes on to explain:

Ro. 3: 25 …He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished

I do not like the word “unpunished” but would use “undisciplined”.

So prior to the cross repentant forgiven people (saved individuals) could not be fairly and justly disciplined for the rebellious disobedience, but after the cross if we repent (come to our senses and turn to God) we can be fairly and justly disciplined and yet survive.

God and Christ would have personally preferred Christ’s blood to remain flowing through his veins, but it is I that need to have that blood outside of Christ flowing over me and in me cleansing my heart. I need to feel that blood and know it is cleansing me.

If you think about the crucifixion, you would realize at the time, Christ was on the cross God in heaven out of empathy/Love for Christ would be experience an even greater pain than Christ. We as our Love grows and our realization of what we personally caused Christ to go through will feel the death blow to our hearts (Acts 2:37). We will experience the greatest pain we could experience and still live, which is the way God is disciplining us today and for all the right reasons because Loving discipline correctly accepted results in a wondrous relationship with our parent. (We can now comfortably feel justified standing before God.)

Look at what is being preached to nonbelievers by Disciples of Christ from Acts 2 to at least Acts 9 and we have lots of Christ crucified sermons being given to really go after the sinner’s heart with the responsibility of persecuting and murdering the Messiah, but nothing said about Christ taking their place. Christ does not tell Saul/Paul I took your place on the cross, Stephan’s sermon to the Pharisees is not “Christ took your place” and the sermons with Acts 2 and after in Jerusalem could be described mainly as: “Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified…”.

Click to expand...

This seems to neglect God's holiness.
If a offender were to stand before a judge and the judge said, "I forgive you because I love you" and them let the offender go free, that would be an unjust judge. The person committed a crime and the penalty must be paid.
But, if the judge were to say what the penalty was, and them pay the penalty himself, and then say, "You are forgiven, you are free". That would be a just judge.

This is what Christ did on our behalf. We were the offender and God the Judge. We were guilty of a crime and were unable to pay the penalty, so God gave His only begotten Son to pay our penalty.