I agree with your rejection of penal substitution. I don't go along with you alternative ransom theory. I believe I have argued this with you before, so I don't need to get started on it again.
There should be no question if Christ’s crucifixion is a ransom payment since that is the way Christ, Peter, Paul, John and the Hebrew writer describe it, but the question is who the criminal kidnapper is being offered the payment, with acceptance allowing a child to enter the Kingdom?
I do not remember our discussing this before.
So you agree that the plan we got was one of many possibilities. We are in agreement that Jesus' death is a better plan for atonement than animal sacrifices. What you don't acknowledge is that animal sacrifices sufficed for a while just as the old covenant/law sufficed for a while. If you profess that the new covenant is better than the old, then why wait thousands of years for it? Wouldn't the best plan for God's people be the introduction of the the better covenant as early as possible?
Good questions:
In Ro. 3:25 Paul presents a contrast between: before the Cross system and after the cross system, with after the cross providing a way for the repentant forgiven sinner to be punished (disciplines) while before the cross God could forgive but could only pass over the sins (leaving them unpunished (undisciplined).
All the Old Testament is preparing man for the cross scenario, with step by step situation (concerns/questions) being addressed. Everything is driven by man’s objective and different degrees and types of help are provided as needed.
You do not have to even start with the Old Law, but go back to the Garden to see and learn.
The Paradise Garden tells us where God would really like for us to be (this helps us believe in heaven), but as we see from our very best all human representatives the Garden is a louse place for humans to fulfill their earthly objective. Adam & Eve and all of us now know: be sinless and to some degree deserving of being given up front by a Loving Parent does not help you to humbly accept pure charity when you do not need to be humble (you have done nothing wrong). After this learning experience, having limited resources, being indebted to God, needing God’s forgiveness, death hanging over you, and being in a humbling situation, did provide a much better situation for accepting God’s charity. This does not mean it was not good for us to learn “Why we are not all starting out in a Garden situation”.
The Law addresses another huge human question: “God just tell us what we got to do and we will do it.”
Man is taught from an early age to walk on his own, feed himself, tie his own shoes and so on. We are to be self-reliant. So, “God just tell me and I’ll do it”, I do not want to beg for charity, but deserve to be in heaven. This question is what the Law addresses, yet people are still asking today.
There is also the prepping of the situation for the Messiah to come into the world (God needs to set up the situation [the Jewish society]).
I don't agree that God must always do what is best for us. Romans 9 certainly says some do not get the best deal. And, I think there is a Psalm that says God does not need us for anything.
What pleases God? If God is the most unselfish being there could be, then God’s pleasure is derived from our accepting His help (like the Father in the prodigal son story).
I wonder about Matthew 1:17 calling out three periods of 14 generations from Abraham to Jesus. Regardless, Ephesians says God's plan was for his good pleasure, not ours.
I do not see those “requirements” as being something “God needs”, but what we need in order for heaven to be some place we want to be. We need Godly type love, because heaven is like one huge Love Feast (with the Love only being Godly type Love). Most people seem to only want to be loved for the way they want others to perceive them to be and not in spite of the way they are.
God is not going to force heaven on us.
God does have requirements that need to be satisfied for salvation. If not you end up with universal salvation which ignores the justness quality of God. I certainly agree the cross was for our sake.
I agree that sinners are punished, not sins. But, this is implied with offenses requiring an offender and "our" in "our sins" both referring to people that commit sins. My using "sin is an offense that needs to be punished" is right in line with "The wages of sin is death". I used the words to call out the justness quality of God. Justice is punishing the wicked.
I thank you for your work on the Greek, but it is all Greek to me and do not think it necessary to be Greek scholars to read the Bible in English. There is enough repetition of concepts stated multiple ways in the Bible so that the doctrines God would have us to know could be known. Atonement is mentioned numerous times in scripture. It is compared to a ransom. It is compared to a debt being paid. It is sometimes just being forgiven/forgotten. My problem is that the various SA explanations and others, including your emphasis on ransom, don't fit in with all that scripture speaks to the subject.
I agree fully you do not need to be a Greek Scholar and the Greek words could have different meanings at the time. We have all the main ideas repeated.
We can also rely on the indwelling Holy Spirit guiding us if we really sincerely need to know (lots of pray, study, and meditation). We can also bounce ideas off other sincere Christians like I am doing with you.
I have to stick with my idea that Jesus death was an act that demonstrated two of God's qualities, justness and love.
The moral example (Love) is in everything Christ did and the greatest Love is shown on the cross.
I see a “Parenting Justice” in providing a way for us (sinners) to be fairly/justly/Lovingly disciplined.
Romans 3:5 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
So many treat Jesus' death as a mechanism for forgiveness. SA really emphasizes this legalistic accounting. While Jesus death did effect forgiveness, his death doesn't just satisfy a just requirement of the Father, it is as you describe for our help and benefit.
Jesus' death is the basis of the new covenant which is a better covenant to bring the message of God's grace and glory to the world.
Jesus said prior to His death “It is finished”, so death itself might not part of the atonement sacrifice. If you thing about it death for Christ stopped the torture and His way Home. Christ kept Himself alive for as long as He did to help us in our being crucified with Him. Jesus could have had a heatstroke and fallen off his donkey and died entering Jerusalem, if we need the death to only begin the New Covenant.
