- May 10, 2011
- 11,529
- 4,030
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Green
That would make sense because a debt that has been forgiven would have no need for punishment.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That would make sense because a debt that has been forgiven would have no need for punishment.Scripture characterizes the condition as indebtedness, and makes it clear that the one to whom the debt is owned is fully able to forgive the debt.
I would be willing to argue that Job was under the Abrahamic covenant.Nobody seriously argues that Job is not saved, yet Job was not even under the Abrahamic covenant.
I think this is true, but if so, why couldn't God just forgive our sins without the death of Christ?Scripture characterizes the condition as indebtedness, and makes it clear that the one to whom the debt is owned is fully able to forgive the debt.
If you'll notice, neither God nor Job mentions it, nor does Job perform any Mosaic Covenant actions. Most scholars agree that Job is not a descendant of Abraham. Where we would expect either of them to refer to God's actions for the Hebrew patriarchs, God instead refers only to His work in creation....the testimony that Paul tells us is for the pagans.I would be willing to argue that Job was under the Abrahamic covenant.
On the question of whether God must exact punishment, the answer is, "No," He can choose grace.I think this is true, but if so, why couldn't God just forgive our sins without the death of Christ?
He no doubt lived prior to Moses.If you'll notice, neither God nor Job mentions it, nor does Job perform any Mosaic Covenant actions. Most scholars agree that Job is not a descendant of Abraham. Where we would expect either of them to refer to God's actions for the Hebrew patriarchs, God instead refers only to His work in creation....the testimony that Paul tells us is for the pagans.
Very good! If God forgives your sins 100% there is nothing for Jesus to "Pay" and if Christ pays our debt 100% than there is nothing to be forgiven.I think this is true, but if so, why couldn't God just forgive our sins without the death of Christ?
I don't think kidnapping is quite what is in mind. More like how kings captured in battle would be held for ransom. But our captivity is death, and our captor the grave.Very good! If God forgives your sins 100% there is nothing for Jesus to "Pay" and if Christ pays our debt 100% than there is nothing to be forgiven.
You do not find in the Biblical definition of "forgiveness" also paying the debt, your offending the Creator of the universe cannot be "paid" by any means, but God can forgive.
Christ's life and going to the cross is described as a ransom payment, but who is the underserving kidnapper accept or rejecting the payment?
God is not an undeserving criminal kidnapper, so it cannot be Him.
God does not need to pay satan anything since God can easily and safely take anything satan might possess.
Death, sin and other intangibles cannot change with a payment.
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 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 ransom payments to have their children released.
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.
You liked what I had to say about the “ransom”, but come back with another idea.I don't think kidnapping is quite what is in mind. More like how kings captured in battle would be held for ransom. But our captivity is death, and our captor the grave.
Yep. That's part of having a conversation.You liked what I had to say about the “ransom”, but come back with another idea.
The idea of a ransom did not come from New Testament times, but from OT times:We are not like a “king” being captured, but very much like the child of the king being captured.
The writers of the NT letters are writing to their first century audience and we are just reading their mail, so we need to keep in mind how that first century audience would understand it, since that is whom, the writer is trying to communicate with. If we were just like the first century audience, we would be better able to understand what was being communicated to us.
At the time everyone would have been formular with Julius Ceasar’s kidnapping at 21 and the huge payment, and the author would know this when addressing his audience.
There is no reason to make an unbelievable huge payment to an intangible grave and death, like the prodigal son being “dead” while in the foreign land, did not keep the son from turning to the father without any ransom being paid.
Ok. If you have another thread, or want to start one, ping me in it.What I gave you was just an introduction into the huge topic of atonement which is nothing like the six popular interpretations of atonement. This can take us way off the OP topic, which I did not address.
Sounds like original sin of some type.I do not believe in the doctrine of “original sin”, but do feel Adam and Eve were our very best all human representatives who sinned with only one way to sin and the nature they had. With their sinning, all mature adults have been given knowledge of “good and evil”, a law written on our hearts (conscience), which provides tons of ways to sin.
Not true. Everybody dies, even infants sonetimes.There is no need for a nature change of the individual. People prior to reach the age of accountability do not sin and thus are in a safe condition not needing to be saved (they have not sinned).
Even infants and those under the age of accountability die and need to be ransomed from death.Scripture does not really address these people, but knowing God I feel they would go on to heaven not fulfilling their earthly objective and thus having only a child for wonderful parent type love.
Yep. That's part of having a conversation.
The idea of a ransom did not come from New Testament times, but from OT times:
Exodus 21:30 KJV — If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.
And a ransom from the grave is explicitly spoken of.
Hosea 13:14 KJV — I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.
Ok. If you have another thread, or want to start one, ping me in it.
Sounds like original sin of some type.
Not true. Everybody dies, even infants sonetimes.
Even infants and those under the age of accountability die and need to be ransomed from death.
I think it leads to an understanding of how we are saved and what we are saved from. It centers on death, brought by sin. And if death, then the answer is life. We can tell the salvation from death comes to every man...because all are resurrected. What kind of body do you think those who haven't heard the gospel are resurrected into, corruptible or incorruptible?Might I ask what you hope to accomplish with such speculation? We know there is salvation through the gospel and we do not know if there is salvation through any other means, and so we must preach the gospel. God may show mercy beyond the gospel message, but such mercy is not in any way guaranteed so it is unwise to go beyond salvation in the gospel. Just preach the gospel, because we know there is salvation within it and let God worry about those who never hear it.
Seems a foolish controversy to me, a distraction from the simple message of Jesus Christ at best and possibly giving false hope and a cause for laxity towards the preaching of the gospel. We know there is salvation in none other than Jesus Christ, to go beyond preaching Him and His cross into the realm of speculation and supposition is a dangerous game. All I know is that Jesus Christ gave His life according to the Scripture, and took it back up after 3 days and that in that message there is salvation to those who believe.I think it leads to an understanding of how we are saved and what we are saved from. It centers on death, brought by sin. And if death, then the answer is life. We can tell the salvation from death comes to every man...because all are resurrected. What kind if body do you think those who haven't heard the gospel are resurrected into, corruptible or incorruptible?
Ok. Thanks for your comments.Seems a foolish controversy to me, a distraction from the simple message of Jesus Christ at best and possibly giving false hope and a cause for laxity towards the preaching of the gospel. We know there is salvation in none other than Jesus Christ, to go beyond preaching Him and His cross into the realm of speculation and supposition is a dangerous game. All I know is that Jesus Christ gave His life according to the Scripture, and took it back up after 3 days and that in that message there is salvation to those who believe.
This gets into hermeneutics and the importance of context, context, context, context and context.The idea of a ransom did not come from New Testament times, but from OT times:
Exodus 21:30 KJV — If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.
And a ransom from the grave is explicitly spoken of.
Hosea 13:14 KJV — I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.
I will try to find what I started many years ago.Ok. If you have another thread, or want to start one, ping me in it.
I am not saying: “I do not believe in original sin”, because Adam and Eve were the first human sinning, but I disagree with the “doctrine” of original sin.Sounds like original sin of some type.
Yes, but is death bad in and of itself? Death is the way good and innocent people get to go to heaven and bad people quit doing bad stuff. The problem with infants dying is the fact they will not have fulfilled their earthly objective.Not true. Everybody dies, even infants sonetimes.
You say “die” meaning physical death, but then say: “be ransomed from death”, but do they not physically die? In Hosea 13 the author is talking about redeeming (ransoming), some Jews from physical death that is coming to Israel, not spiritual death.Even infants and those under the age of accountability die and need to be ransomed from death.
This gets into hermeneutics and the importance of context, context, context, context and context.
The word “ransom” was used in the Old Testament in Hebrew and translated to the Greek to be the same word used in the NT, but that does not mean the people of the first century went back to the OT to defined their definition for words. How was the Greek word “Ransom” defined by the first century audience being addressed by the writers of the NT and not how we today will try to go back to the OT section of the Bible to try to define the word. If the writer is quoting from the OT, then you do want to know how the word were defined in the OT, because that is probably the way the writer is using them.
Some English words used 400 years ago have changed their meaning, looking at later translations of Ex. 21:39-30 (NIV) 29 If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull is to be stoned and its owner also is to be put to death. 30 However, if payment is demanded, the owner may redeem his life by the payment of whatever is demanded. The idea is the family might accept payment for the life of their family member killed, instead of the owner of the bull being killed. This would not be an unbelievable huge amount.
Hosea 13:14 (NIV) “I will deliver this people from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. Where, O death, are your plagues? Where, O grave, is your destruction?
God did save a small group of Israel from the destruction so it was not a total wipe out. “Ransom” in the KJV could have the meaning of deliverance.
In the OT the Jews paid a “ransom” of a few coins as a temple tax, but that is a modest amount, paid by the person themselves to enter the temple, and it did not set them “free”.
So, that OT definition does not fit Jesus’, John’s, Paul’s, Peter’s nor the writer of Hebrew’s definition.
The payment is unbelievably huge, a child is being set free, the Father is paying, the child set free goes to the Father and the kidnapper is an undeserving criminal. The ransom in the NT fits a kidnapping scenario.
I will try to find what I started many years ago.
I am not saying: “I do not believe in original sin”, because Adam and Eve were the first human sinning, but I disagree with the “doctrine” of original sin.
I believe we are born innocent, and sin when we reach the age of accountability, partly because there are so many ways to sin and our nature is the same as Adam and Eve (who sinned with only one way to sin).
Yes, but is death bad in and of itself? Death is the way good and innocent people get to go to heaven and bad people quit doing bad stuff. The problem with infants dying is the fact they will not have fulfilled their earthly objective.
Think of what it would be like if people did not die, sin has perceived pleasure for a season, so would people put-off for eternity humbling themselves to the point of accept God’s pure undeserved charity? Death actually help some nonbelievers to become believers, so should God take that benefit away from them?
You say “die” meaning physical death, but then say: “be ransomed from death”, but do they not physically die? In Hosea 13 the author is talking about redeeming (ransoming), some Jews from physical death that is coming to Israel, not spiritual death.
Some infants do physically die, but that does not mean they need saving, they will not fulfill their earthly objective.
Romans 4:15...
Even infants and those under the age of accountability die and need to be ransomed from death.
And yet death, which was the penalty for eating if the tree of knowledge of good and evil, is applied and was applied even to those who weren't under the law (your first citation in context):Romans 4:15
(15) Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Romans 5:13
(13) (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Yes, I think this is extremely important.The notion death is good isn't consonant with Christianity. Jesus defeated death and overcame the grave. Early Christians were not concerned with "going to heaven", as Bishop N.T. Wright and others have pointed out, but eternal life, beginning in this world, not in otherwordliness.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?