Inside the Atonement: What Christ Actually Did on the Cross

Arial-byGrace said:

Straw man. I never said we were not changing towards righteousness now. In fact I have repeatedly said that we are. Justification is about our legal standing as reconciled to God in Christ and through faith. You can't change the biblicaluse of a word to suit yourself. It means wht it means.

And no, we weren't created to be sinners but we were created in a manner that insured we would---and that for God's purposes and greater good. But if I can't have a reasonable conversation without all that argumentativeness and contentiousness with you about justification, I am certainly not having this other conversation with you.

Click to expand...

It's been done before. Luther stated correctly that justifcation was the crux of the Reformation-nothing else much mattered compared to it. Anyway, without a proper understanding of faith and its role-and how it justifies-the gospel isn't well understood. And that's the sad state of affairs today in many churches/denominations. Fortunately most Christians live their lives as if what they do, as they come to believe in God...counts, when it comes to whether or not they'll be meeting Him-regardless of professed theology.

Jesus primarily didn't do it for us. He did it for the Father. We just like to make it about us.

timothyu said:

Jesus primarily didn't do it for us. He did it for the Father. We just like to make it about us.

Click to expand...

How about, they both made it about us, even though we don't deserve it. Jesus laid down His life, and there's no greater love than that. The love of Jesus and the love of the Father must be the same, no?

fhansen said:

The love of Jesus and the love of the Father must be the same, no?

Click to expand...

Correct. The inseparable operations of the Trinity. Opus ad extra.

Ain't Zwinglian said:

Correct. The inseparable operations of the Trinity. Opus ad extra.

Click to expand...

Thank you. Perhaps it could be said that from the side of His humanity, obedience to the Father was certainly a priority, as we find in scripture. And due to His divine nature, His immense love for humanity would compel His actions. Maybe, or maybe just bad theology LOL

fhansen said:

How about, they both made it about us, even though we don't deserve it. Jesus laid down His life, and there's no greater love than that. The love of Jesus and the love of the Father must be the same, no?

Click to expand...

Agreed, but we, as Jesus did, must put the Father's Will first, what He wants, rather than make it all about us and what we want. His Will be done, even if it were alternately to decide to wipe us out. Now there's a test of loyalty.

timothyu said:

Agreed, but we, as Jesus did, must put the Father's Will first, what He wants, rather than make it all about us and what we want. His Will be done, even if it were alternately to decide to wipe us out. Now there's a test of loyalty.

Click to expand...

Sounds good. And I think it could be said that He doesn't only want us to abandon our wills in favor of His, as we come to be convicted of our foolishness and sinfulness and the harm it does, but He wants our wills to change, to overcome our selfish desires of the flesh as we become convinced of the wisdom and value of His will, and become aligned with it; we becoming increasingly one in will with the Father as Jesus always was. A related way to put it is that He wants us to come to love as He does, and as we can to the extent that we're united with Him.

timothyu said:

Jesus primarily didn't do it for us. He did it for the Father. We just like to make it about us.

Click to expand...

If you go back and read some of my posts, I explained the ransom was both for us and to us.

Arial-byGrace said:

God.

Click to expand...

That doesn’t quite work because it means God paid God, According to Orthodox teaching, Christ did metaphorically ransom us, but no one was paid. The idea of Christ dying to satisfy the angry Father divides the Holy Trinity and was unknown in the Early Church - we don’t see it until Anselm of Canterbury’s scholastic Satisfaction theology, which under Calvinism evolved into the very unpleasant “penal substitutionary atonement.”

The Early Church Fathers taught Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross was the supreme victory of Love, trampling down death by death, despoiling Hades and that through his Incarnation and Crucifixion, God died on the cross to show us what it means to be human, before rising from the dead as the firstfruits of the Resurrection.

The Liturgist said:

, Christ did metaphorically ransom us, but no one was paid.

Click to expand...

It took me years to understand this. If Xp ransomed us....who was the ransom paid to? The text does not say. So I went down the rabbit's hole trying to think was it the Father or Satan which both have serious problems. Then I read someone who just said what you wrote learned to live with it.

The Liturgist said:

That doesn’t quite work because it means God paid God, According to Orthodox teaching, Christ did metaphorically ransom us, but no one was paid. The idea of Christ dying to satisfy the angry Father divides the Holy Trinity and was unknown in the Early Church - we don’t see it until Anselm of Canterbury’s scholastic Satisfaction theology, which under Calvinism evolved into the very unpleasant “penal substitutionary atonement.”

The Early Church Fathers taught Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross was the supreme victory of Love, trampling down death by death, despoiling Hades and that through his Incarnation and Crucifixion, God died on the cross to show us what it means to be human, before rising from the dead as the firstfruits of the Resurrection.

Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of what you have to say, especially: "A ransom is a price paid by a free person to deliver another person from slavery." But who is the undeserving receiver of this huge payment?

The Bible refers to Jesus’ sacrifice as a literal ransom payment:

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.”

1 Timothy 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time

Heb. 9: 15…now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

We do have the blood specifically mentioned in 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;

We should agree on:

• Jesus life and death is the unbelievable huge ransom payment?
• The ransom payment was made to set children free to go to the Kingdom and be with the Father?
• Deity (Jesus and God both) made this unbelievable huge payment?
• All these fit perfectly a ransom scenario?
• The scripture is not describing Jesus’ cruel torturous death on the cross as being like a ransom payment, but as being a ransom payment?

Now think about this:

In the context of first century time and the people being addressed how would they have understood this idea of an unbelievable huge ransom being paid. Does the “ransoming” fit a kidnapping ransom? The Bible tells us there is a ransom payment at least being offered and definitely made for “many” and “God’s saints” and there is a redemption (setting free).

Peter even helps us out more by contrasting the unbelievable huge payment of Christ to just a payment of silver and gold. Who might take silver and gold, so it can be a good analogy for Peter? 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,

A kidnapper, in general, holds back the parent’s children awaiting an acceptable ransom payment, so who do you blame for keeping children out of the Kingdom?

The Kidnapper cannot be God, since He is not an undeserving criminal kidnapper holding His own children back.

Also, the Kidnapper would not be satan, since God has the power to take from satan, without paying anything to satan. There is no cosmic Law saying you got to pay the kidnapper and it would be wrong to do so, if you could get around it and satan is fully undeserving.

We know death, sin and evil were concurred with Christ’s death and resurrection, but those are not tangible things needing to be paid anything.

So who is the kidnapper?

When you go up to a nonbelieving sinner, what are you trying to get him/her to accept: A doctrine, a denomination, a book, a theology, a church or something else? NO, you want the nonbeliever to accept “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified” and if he does accept this, then a child of God is released to enter the Kingdom and be with God, but if the sinner rejects “Jesus Christ and Him crucifies” a child is kept out of the Kingdom.

Does this not sound very much like a kidnapping scenario with a ransom being offered?

“Jesus Christ and Him crucified” is described in scripture as the ransom payment.

Could the sinner holding a child of God out of the Kingdom of God, be described as a criminal kidnapper?

“Jesus Christ and Him crucified” is a huge sacrificial payment, like you find with children being ransomed?

Parents will make huge sacrificial payments to have their children released, but it is still up to the kidnapper to accept or reject the ransom.

You might go back and read all my posts on atonement.

Ain't Zwinglian said:

It took me years to understand this. If Xp ransomed us....who was the ransom paid to? The text does not say. So I went down the rabbit's hole trying to think was it the Father or Satan which both have serious problems. Then I read someone who just said what you wrote learned to live with it.

Click to expand...

read my last post above.

bling said:

I agree with a lot of what you have to say, especially: "A ransom is a price paid by a free person to deliver another person from slavery." But who is the undeserving receiver of this huge payment?

The Bible refers to Jesus’ sacrifice as a literal ransom payment:

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.”

1 Timothy 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time

Heb. 9: 15…now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

We do have the blood specifically mentioned in 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;

We should agree on:

• Jesus life and death is the unbelievable huge ransom payment?
• The ransom payment was made to set children free to go to the Kingdom and be with the Father?
• Deity (Jesus and God both) made this unbelievable huge payment?
• All these fit perfectly a ransom scenario?
• The scripture is not describing Jesus’ cruel torturous death on the cross as being like a ransom payment, but as being a ransom payment?

Now think about this:

In the context of first century time and the people being addressed how would they have understood this idea of an unbelievable huge ransom being paid. Does the “ransoming” fit a kidnapping ransom? The Bible tells us there is a ransom payment at least being offered and definitely made for “many” and “God’s saints” and there is a redemption (setting free).

Peter even helps us out more by contrasting the unbelievable huge payment of Christ to just a payment of silver and gold. Who might take silver and gold, so it can be a good analogy for Peter? 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,

A kidnapper, in general, holds back the parent’s children awaiting an acceptable ransom payment, so who do you blame for keeping children out of the Kingdom?

The Kidnapper cannot be God, since He is not an undeserving criminal kidnapper holding His own children back.

Also, the Kidnapper would not be satan, since God has the power to take from satan, without paying anything to satan. There is no cosmic Law saying you got to pay the kidnapper and it would be wrong to do so, if you could get around it and satan is fully undeserving.

We know death, sin and evil were concurred with Christ’s death and resurrection, but those are not tangible things needing to be paid anything.

So who is the kidnapper?

When you go up to a nonbelieving sinner, what are you trying to get him/her to accept: A doctrine, a denomination, a book, a theology, a church or something else? NO, you want the nonbeliever to accept “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified” and if he does accept this, then a child of God is released to enter the Kingdom and be with God, but if the sinner rejects “Jesus Christ and Him crucifies” a child is kept out of the Kingdom.

Does this not sound very much like a kidnapping scenario with a ransom being offered?

“Jesus Christ and Him crucified” is described in scripture as the ransom payment.

Could the sinner holding a child of God out of the Kingdom of God, be described as a criminal kidnapper?

“Jesus Christ and Him crucified” is a huge sacrificial payment, like you find with children being ransomed?

Parents will make huge sacrificial payments to have their children released, but it is still up to the kidnapper to accept or reject the ransom.

You might go back and read all my posts on atonement.

Click to expand...

That's interesting. The gospel appeals to us, because something in us is the obstacle to begin with. An ancient teaching maintains that, at the Fall, man became divided in some manner from God, from his fellow man, from the rest of creation, and from and within himself. What will tear down that wall, the wall that pride has built? Only His love can do so. And the price for revealing that love, for revealing the true God, was His own life.

Did God owe the "ransom" to anyone? Of course not-He could've just wiped out His wayward creation for that matter- but He wanted to do so anyway-as part of His plan from the beginning. His ultimate plan is for us to come to love as He does, to become like Him to the extent that such is possible. That's our salvation.

bling said:

I agree with a lot of what you have to say, especially: "A ransom is a price paid by a free person to deliver another person from slavery." But who is the undeserving receiver of this huge payment?

The Bible refers to Jesus’ sacrifice as a literal ransom payment:

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.”

1 Timothy 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time

Heb. 9: 15…now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

We do have the blood specifically mentioned in 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;

We should agree on:

• Jesus life and death is the unbelievable huge ransom payment?
• The ransom payment was made to set children free to go to the Kingdom and be with the Father?
• Deity (Jesus and God both) made this unbelievable huge payment?
• All these fit perfectly a ransom scenario?
• The scripture is not describing Jesus’ cruel torturous death on the cross as being like a ransom payment, but as being a ransom payment?

Now think about this:

In the context of first century time and the people being addressed how would they have understood this idea of an unbelievable huge ransom being paid. Does the “ransoming” fit a kidnapping ransom? The Bible tells us there is a ransom payment at least being offered and definitely made for “many” and “God’s saints” and there is a redemption (setting free).

Peter even helps us out more by contrasting the unbelievable huge payment of Christ to just a payment of silver and gold. Who might take silver and gold, so it can be a good analogy for Peter? 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,

A kidnapper, in general, holds back the parent’s children awaiting an acceptable ransom payment, so who do you blame for keeping children out of the Kingdom?

The Kidnapper cannot be God, since He is not an undeserving criminal kidnapper holding His own children back.

Also, the Kidnapper would not be satan, since God has the power to take from satan, without paying anything to satan. There is no cosmic Law saying you got to pay the kidnapper and it would be wrong to do so, if you could get around it and satan is fully undeserving.

We know death, sin and evil were concurred with Christ’s death and resurrection, but those are not tangible things needing to be paid anything.

So who is the kidnapper?

When you go up to a nonbelieving sinner, what are you trying to get him/her to accept: A doctrine, a denomination, a book, a theology, a church or something else? NO, you want the nonbeliever to accept “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified” and if he does accept this, then a child of God is released to enter the Kingdom and be with God, but if the sinner rejects “Jesus Christ and Him crucifies” a child is kept out of the Kingdom.

Does this not sound very much like a kidnapping scenario with a ransom being offered?

“Jesus Christ and Him crucified” is described in scripture as the ransom payment.

Could the sinner holding a child of God out of the Kingdom of God, be described as a criminal kidnapper?

“Jesus Christ and Him crucified” is a huge sacrificial payment, like you find with children being ransomed?

Parents will make huge sacrificial payments to have their children released, but it is still up to the kidnapper to accept or reject the ransom.

You might go back and read all my posts on atonement.

Click to expand...

The word ransom is not incorrect, but a ransom does not have to be paid to an individual - the word can be used generically to refer to any sacrifice made for the well-being of another, which is clearly the intended meaning in the New Testament and in the early Church Fathers.

The issue with saying a ransom was paid to someone is simply that there are seemingly two people to whom the ransom could be paid, but neither makes any sense: the ransom was not paid to the devil, because the devil has no rights; the devil is entirely subject to God, who has punished and continues to punish him for his harmful acts, allowing him only to do those things so that our faith is like gold tried in the fire, in order that our love for God is pure (and furthermore, within Byzantine theology, we are not monergists, although I respect my Lutheran friends, but our position is that God would not compel us to love Him, due to the reduction in th ontological quality of involuntary vs. voluntary love; not loving God is diabolical, and thus it makes sense the devil would seek to tempt people towards that quality; in a sense therefore the devil is unwittingly used as a mechanism for facilitating genuine love between humans and God as God rescues us from demonic snares.*

The devil has no rights, so God owes him nothing; and the liturgy of the ancient church such as the Paschal Homily of St. John Chrysostom confirm that Hades was despoiled and death was trampled down by death. So clearly the devil did not profit or receive any kind of payment from Christ our Lord, God and Savior; particularly abhorrent is the idea that when Christ descended into Hell, it was to endure torture on our behalf - this is not the case - rather, the Harrowing of Hell is the Patristic idea that Christ freed from Hades those righteous ones of the Old Testament and anyone else who would follow Him, who was trapped there as a result of having the misfortune to be born before the Passion of Christ our True God. Thus we might legitimately hope to meet someone like Aristotle or Gaius Julius Caesar, and have a certainty of meeting the saints of the Old Testament such as St. Elijah, St. Moses, St. Abraham, St. David, St. Solomon, St. Isaiah, St. Ezekiel, St. Zecariah, St. Jeramiah, St. Nehemiah and St. Esdras (Ezra), among many others - indeed all lists of the holy Patriarchs and Prophets of the Old Testament tends to be quite long.

Nor can we say that the ransom was paid to God, for this reason - Christ is God. The problem with Anselm’s satisfaction theology and the even more problematic Penal Substitutionary Atonement is that the idea of one person of the Trinity tormenting the other as a vicarious punishment for our sins is incompatible with what Scripture says about the nature of God - that God is love, that the persons of the Trinity cannot act against each other (this is what Christ was referring to with “A House Divided Cannot Stand”), Christ and the Father and the Holy Spirit are of one essence, and since Christ has declared “I and the Father are one” in John 10:30, the problem here is the Father would be punishing Himself, which contradicts the premise. Additionally, the idea violates the Scriptural principle of divine immutability, since God does not change, thus God going from wrathful to satisfied as a result of Christ paying the price for our sins is contra-scriptural.

I would also note the idea of God the Father as angry and infuriated and willing to take it out on His only begotten Son is a stumbling block for many Christians, and a needless one, because historically, the early Church did not teach this; we really first see this idea in Anselm of Canterbury with the idea of Christ suffering to satisfy the wounded honor of the Father, an idea rooted in a peculiar blend of Medieval chivalry with Christian theology; some aspects of chivalry are admirable, some aren’t, but it is not a solid foundation for Christian theology, and yet far too much of Western theology built upon Anselm.


*Actually what I said there is probably not substantially incompatible with Lutheran monergism, even though I wrote it from a Byzantine synergist perspective. I like Lutherans, but I am Orthodox and this really is the only substantive theological issue (between some Lutherans and most Orthodox). There are a few secondary issues, such as intercessory prayer; Lutherans venerate saints but do not usually seek their intercession, whereas we do, and some Lutherans still adhere to the filioque, and unfortunately my church and several others wasted a considerable amount of effort persuading the liberal Lutheran churches of the LWF to drop the filioque, which is a pyrhhic victory considering those churches have beliefs that are much more problematic than the filioque; we should have focused that attention on the confessional Lutherans. OF course one might argue that droppiing the filioque is a first step towards a re-embrace of Orthodox positions on issues like human sexuality, but I would lament that the Anglicans have included Orthodox prayers in their liturgy from the beginning, prayers added to the English liturgy by Thomas Cranmer from the Divine Liturgy the Eastern Orthodox Church, for instance, the Prayer of St. Chrysostom at the close of the services of the Divine Office (Mattins, Evensong and the Litany), and more recently Westminster Abbey has installed Orthodox icons in the nave, but unfortunately none of this has been enough to arrest the continued decay in the Anglican communion; also, such a view fails to account for the existence of the confessional Lutherans and continuing Anglicans and Anglicans of GAFCON who still have the filioque but in all other respects resemble the Orthodox.