What would you say in the bible indicate that the ransom was paid to Satan, and what indictate that ransom was paid to God?
You really need to read my post 9.
It would be totally disrespectful to suggest God was a criminal kidnapper of his own children.
To suggest God needs some "help" to forgive people makes Him out to be weak and lacking in Love.
It makes it also sound like God is not in charge and some cosmic "rule" is forcing Him to pay Himself.
What personal value would God receive from what He would not want to happen with the torture, humiliation and murder of Christ?
It all sounds so foolish.
BUT to say the ransom was paid the satan is just as degrading to God:
Does God not have the power to safely take anything satan has?
Is God somehow obligated to do something He does not personally want to do?
Since God does have the power and Love it would actually be wrong for Him to pay the enemy anything.
There is a third party in the situation who is rebellious disobedient arrogant criminal (like a prodigal son) and has kidnapped a child of God holding the child away from the Father and is totally unworthy of any ransom payment especially not a huge sacrificial ransom payment.
Think about this, did the rebellious disobedient criminal (prodigal son) who virtually told his father: "I wish you were dead so I could have my inheritance" return to the father or was in a new person/new child/different person; a humble repentant sincere child of the who went to the father. Only sincere humble repentant children can go into the Kingdom (home of the father)?
Who was holding that wonderful child of the father back for as long as he was in the pigsty starving to death, because that describes a kidnapper?
The resurrection brings victory over satan, while the cruel death is paying a ransom.
You can also do a word study of the word "for", because the ransom is "for" you. It is not "for" satan to have but it is offered to you like a gift being "for" you.
Looking at verses in particular:
(NIV) Ro. 3:25 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—
“God presented” this might be better expressed as “God is offering” since it will later be received, received or rejected on the contingency of some kind of “faith”. Instead of received it might better be translated as accepted (with the option of being rejected or not accepted).
“Sacrifice of atonement” is described by Jesus, Paul, Peter, John and the Hebrew writer as the “ransom payment” or just “ransom”. So God is offering a ransom payment to be accepted by those with faith or rejected by those refusing or just not accepted by those lacking faith.
A huge part of that ransom payment that especially applies to those that are already Christians is the life giving cleansing blood of Christ. Christ and God would have personally preferred that blood remained in Christ’s veins, but I needed it given up by Christ to flow over both my outside and my heart to know, experience, “trust” and feel I am cleansed and made alive. So Christ willingly gave up His blood for me and because of me. This is an overwhelming tragedy I insisted on to believe: I was made holy, righteous and stand justified. Without knowing and feeling this blood flowing over my heart, I might question my cleansing?
“Demonstrate his righteousness” God did not become righteous, but just showed the righteousness He has always had. (God’s justice/ holiness/being right) comes with the atoning sacrifice that includes the life giving cleansing blood showing God’s righteousness/justice in a very particular way; by resolving the huge problem that existed under the Old Covenant. That huge problem in the Old Covenant was with the handling of intentional sins that where committed, repented of, and which the individual sought forgiveness from God for doing (and God forgave without justly disciplining the sinner [thus not showing His righteousness through His disciplining]). These sins could be forgiven by God, but there was no way to fairly/justly discipline (punish) the sinner and still have the sinner live in the Promised Land. God did have fair/just punishments (discipline) for these sins, but the Jews could not follow through with them, since all Jews deserved to be treated similarly (there would be no one left in the Promised Land).
“in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished” Instead of “unpunished” I would translate that Greek word to be “undisciplined”.
“because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished”, shows the contrast between before and after the cross. This is not saying: “before the cross sins are now being punished by Christ going to the cross”, but is saying they were left unpunished prior to the cross. If they are being handled the “same way” as sins after the cross there would be no contrast? (And there are lots of other problems with this reasoning.) There is no “punishment” (disciplining for intentional sins) before the cross yet there is “punishment” (disciplining of God’s children) with the cross.
Any good parent realizes the need for not just forgiving their rebellious disobedient child, but to also see to the child’s fair/just/loving discipline if at all possible, but under the Old Covenant there was no “fair/just/loving discipline” so God could not show His justice/righteousness except to point out in the Law what really should happen, but that is not “good” disciplining, the child can almost feel they got away with something.
By my coming to the realization of my forcing Christ to be tortured, humiliated and murdered, because of my personal sins I experience a death blow to my heart (Acts 2: 37) the worst possible experience I can have and still live (That is also the most sever disciplining I can experience and still live). Thus I know God is my loving concerned Parent (since He at great cost has seen to my disciplining). I know how significant my sins really are; I can put those sins behind me after being disciplined. Since God and Jesus shared in my disciplining “I am crucified with Christ” (a teaching moment) our relationship is even greater than before my transgressing.
What is the benefit/value for us that we would want to accept the ransom payment of Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder?
What value benefit did it have for those 3000 on the day of Pentecost?
Would those 3000 have become baptized believers on the day of Pentecost if Peter had not been able to say: Acts 2:36 “…this Jesus whom you crucified”?
So for those 3000, their crucifying Christ (ransom payment/atoning sacrifice) resulted in them becoming baptized believers on the day of Pentecost! Did it have value for them?
This will get us started if you really want to know.
///
If God knows the future then we are not free to do anything other than that which He knows we will do.
The heretical Pelagian copout, "well He did not CAUSE it," fails to rescue the doctrine of free will. Free will implies the ability to do something different. But as long as God knows with certainty what we will do then we can't do anything different. No free will then.
Their only hope is open theism, a god who doesn't know the future. Or a molinist blasphemy that claims men existed before God existed.
It is not future time for God, since God is outside of time, but it is man’s future and God in communicating with man can talk about the future, so:
God knows our future, because it is history for Him (God in the distant future of man is the same God at the beginning of time), so God know all man’s free will choices as history (what man did). History cannot be changed, since it happened for God (the God of our future which is the same God of the past).
What free will choices we make in our future where already made by us, but that does not mean we are making them again or we did not make them of our own free will. Our future choices are “set” but they have been set by us and not by God’s knowledge. They are the decisions we made.
You seem to be sold on the “Ransom Theory of Atonement” which has early roots going back to the third century, but that was a time of many kidnappings and ransoms being paid almost as away of life.
Christ, Paul, John, Peter and The Hebrew writer all say Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder was a ransom payment, so it was a ransom, but who is the kidnapper being paid? God does not seem likely, so what about satan?
Tell me this if our all-powerful God could just as easily and safely take His children back without paying would it than be wrong to pay the kidnapper satan?
Does God owe satan anything?
Does this make satan almost on an equal plan with God? (Some do think there is this “war” going on in heaven which God will eventually win.)
