Ransom

[Xeno.of.athens]

You said that Jesus death on the cross was not a substitutionary atonement of sin...and now you say there is no need to know how the atonement works...bit contradictory don't you think?

Nope.

 

[d taylor]

It is exactly because of sin why people go to hell. Sin is a separation from God and separation from God means death.

That's why every sinner is spiritually dead.

God is good and because He is good, He must punish all the evil. Sin is rebellion and sin must be punished.

That's why satan and all the angels that rebelled against God will go to gehenna. And everyone who joins satan in rebellion against God, will end up there.

Christ came to save His chosed people, His bride. Do you think God would leave salvation up to us?

Romans 8 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

In regard to unlimited atonment...
It teaches that on the cross, Jesus paid the debt of sin for everyone because He loves everyone and He wants everyone to be saved. That’s pretty much the common evangelical view. Jesus died for everybody. He paid the price for the sins of everybody. And all we have to do is tell sinners that He loves them so much that He paid the price and He wants them to be saved, and all they have to do is respond.

Now if that is true, then on the cross Jesus accomplished a potential salvation, not an actual one. That is, sinners have all had their sins atoned for potentially, and it’s not actual until they activate it by their faith. So, what we need to do is to tell sinners that they need to pick up the salvation that’s already been purchased for them. Since Christ died for everybody, everybody therefore can be saved. It’s just a matter of them coming to receive that salvation. And so, our responsibility is to convince people to come and take the salvation that’s been provided for them, to convince them to come and accept the gift.

The fallout of that would be like this. Hell is full of people for whom Christ died. I’ll say it another way. Hell is full of people whose sins were paid for in full on the cross. That’s a little more disturbing when you say it like that, isn’t it? Another way to say it would be that the lake of fire, which burns forever with fire and brimstone, is filled with eternally damned people whose sins Christ fully atoned for on the cross. God’s wrath was satisfied by Christ’s atonement on behalf of those people who will forever stay in hell.

it just sounds strange when you start to kind of pick it apart a little bit, doesn’t it? That Jesus died and paid in full the penalty for the sins of the damned, and died and paid in full the penalty for the sins of the glorified, that Jesus did the same thing for the occupants of hell that He did for the occupants of heaven, and the only difference hinges on the sinner’s choice? That is to say, the death of Jesus Christ, then, is not an actual atonement, it is only a potential atonement. He really did not purchase salvation for anyone in particular. He only removed some kind of barrier to make it possible for sinners to choose to be saved.

-
​

Show me a verse where it states a person goes to the lake of fire because of their sin.

This verse plainly states a person is condemned because they do not believe in Jesus.
“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
and another one
He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

And it is seen an unbeliever is sent to the lake of fire because their name was not found in the book of life.
And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

So not believing in Jesus is the only reason a person ends up in the lake of fire. Their sin has been fully paid for by Jesus.

 

[bling]

-
​

Who set the payment for man to be restored by into the family of God, God did. God set blood as the payment for man;s sin that separated man from God. But God set that payment knowing that man could not make that payment himself. So God set a payment that only God could pay. Who is God paying his payment to, it can only be God since God set the payment to began with.

Atonement is a huge misunderstood topic I could write a book on:

Some people are not “restored”, so was the payment not great enough for them?

If you say it paid all, then you have universal atonement, which leads to universal salvation, which takes lots of dancing around to try to avoid.

The ransom is huge virtually beyond believe that God/Christ would do such a thing, so if it is going to God and is paid by God, why does it need to be so bloody huge of a tragedy? Does it not make God’s Love weak, God needing help to forgive?

God forgiving 100% takes the 100% payment requirement away, nothing could really pay God off.

This “payment” as you call it, is Christ being severely tortured, humiliated and cruelly murdered, so how would that be wonderful for God and make Him want to forgive us? It really makes God out to be blood thirsty, but only if the ransom is for Him and not for the bloody, thirsty humans?

I hate it, but I personally need all I can get to feel forgiven, made holy and cleansed. God and Christ both would personally have preferred Christ’s blood to remain flowing through His veins, but it is I who need to know that blood is available for me outside Christ’s body. The blood of animals was used to cleanse the outside of everything made Holy, but I need my heart to be cleansed, so God/Christ have symbolically provided Christ’s spilled blood, to be drank in the form of wine at communion, so I can physically feel Christ’s blood flowing over my heart cleansing me.

Two bads do not make a right. If you do some minor crime, normally you pat money to the state or person to compensate or do some charitable activity (good stuff) to pay for the bad you do, but you are saying Christ does not do some really good thing but goes through something really bad to pay for others doing bad, is that not the way we should look at it?

It is never “just” to see to the hurting of the innocent to allow the guilty to go free.

You did not show in my post where I am wrong:

Do you and all Christians have to humbly accept Jesus Christ and him Crucified and is Jesus Christ and Him Crucified not the ransom payment?

 

[bling]

-
​

Who set the payment for man to be restored by into the family of God, God did. God set blood as the payment for man;s sin that separated man from God. But God set that payment knowing that man could not make that payment himself. So God set a payment that only God could pay. Who is God paying his payment to, it can only be God since God set the payment to began with.

Atonement is a huge misunderstood topic I could write a book on:

Some people are not “restored”, so was the payment not great enough for them?

If you say it paid all, then you have universal atonement, which leads to universal salvation, which takes lots of dancing around to try to avoid.

The ransom is huge virtually beyond believe that God/Christ would do such a thing, so if it is going to God and is paid by God, why does it need to be so bloody huge of a tragedy? Does it not make God’s Love weak, God needing help to forgive?

God forgiving 100% takes the 100% payment requirement away, nothing could really pay God off.

This “payment” as you call it, is Christ being severely tortured, humiliated and cruelly murdered, so how would that be wonderful for God and make Him want to forgive us? It really makes God out to be blood thirsty, but only if the ransom is for Him and not for the bloody, thirsty humans?

I hate it, but I personally need all I can get to feel forgiven, made holy and cleansed. God and Christ both would personally have preferred Christ’s blood to remain flowing through His veins, but it is I who need to know that blood is available for me outside Christ’s body. The blood of animals was used to cleanse the outside of everything made Holy, but I need my heart to be cleansed, so God/Christ have symbolically provided Christ’s spilled blood, to be drank in the form of wine at communion, so I can physically feel Christ’s blood flowing over my heart cleansing me.

Two bads do not make a right. If you do some minor crime, normally you pat money to the state or person to compensate or do some charitable activity (good stuff) to pay for the bad you do, but you are saying Christ does not do some really good thing but goes through something really bad to pay for others doing bad, is that not the way we should look at it?

It is never “just” to see to the hurting of the innocent to allow the guilty to go free.

You did not show in my post where I am wrong:

Do you and all Christians have to humbly accept Jesus Christ and him Crucified and is Jesus Christ and Him Crucified not the ransom payment?

 

[bling]

The ransom was paid to God's justice, which necessarily required it.

You need to read my post 9.
God is "just" since He forgives, without any payment being made to Him.

 

[bling]

Luke 1:68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people.

In everyday matters, redemption meant the release of a person or animal by payment or replacement.

HOWEVER, according to a Jewish encyclopedia, when it came to DIVINE matters, it did not mean payment or replacement, BUT rather it meant liberation from bondage or oppression, including death.

That was the definitions understood of redemption from the Hebrew viewpoint in Jesus' day.
(The Greek meaning was ransom, but notice that conflicts with the notion of liberation.)

read my post 9.

 

[bling]

No one needs a theory of how the atonement works to receive the benefit of the atonement.

Very Good! Atonement is one of those Spiritual concepts which is better learned through experience than reading, look at my post 9 again.

 

[Clare73]

You need to read my post 9.
God is "just" since He forgives, without any payment being made to Him.

Are you unaware of Christ's payment, ransom to the justice of God, to buy us back from his condemnation on sin?

 

[Clare73]

Perhaps it is time for a refresher.

And perhaps not, when it is engaged daily.

 

[Clare73]

Yes but ransom suggests payment where to Hebrew tradition, in Divine matters there was none to be made.

"Hebrew tradition" is fraught with punishment (payment) for wrong doing.

Such punishment is payment to Gods justice, just as murder incurs the debt of incarceration/capital punishment to be paid to justice.

 

[bling]

Are you unaware of Christ's payment, ransom to the justice of God, to buy us back from his condemnation on sin?

There is no "justice" in torturing, humiliating and murdering the innocent to allow the guilty to go free.
Nothing could "pay" for our offending the Creator of the Universe, but the Creator could out of His Love, forgive the offenders.
Forgiving eliminates the need for paying and God's Love is great enough to forgive, without the need for any payment.
This "justice" is not some cosmic "Law" God has to follow and where are you finding the "Law/justice in the Bible outside of what you think atonement is teaching.
Do you and all Christians have to humbly accept Jesus Christ and him Crucified, with Jesus Christ and Him Crucified being the ransom payment?

 

[timothyu]

God is "just" since He forgives, without any payment being made to Him.

Ransom for mankind? Isn't God the one that said 70 x 7? If Jesus was against blood sacrifice in the temple, why would He want to be seen as one Himself? Sounds like somebody else wanted to carry on the old tradition. Jesus was murdered, plain and simple, but of course the descendants of the murders later on wanted to turn that horrific deed on their part into some noble gesture. These religious types tried to kill off a movement of the Kingdom. They could kill the body but not the spirit and they were no match for God, and Jesus popped right back to life. In trying to eliminate Him, they inadvertently gave God reason to defeat death and open the door to the Kingdom. Then the religious types decided to take credit for it. Typical human wisdom using God for their own purposes.

 

[timothyu]

"Hebrew tradition" is fraught with punishment (payment) for wrong doing.

Doesn't make them right. What happened to the forgive 70 x 7?

 

[Clare73]

There is no "justice" in torturing, humiliating and murdering the innocent to allow the guilty to go free.

Contraire. . .that is one of the main burdens of Scripture.

Nothing could "pay" for our offending the Creator of the Universe, but the Creator could out of His Love, forgive the offenders.

That is not the scenario either the OT or the NT presents, it is the scenario of sentimental human thinking.

Forgiving eliminates the need for paying and God's Love is great enough to forgive, without the need for any payment.

No. . .forgiving eliminates the need for me paying for my sin. I'm the one whose debt is forgiven (cancelled, removed) by someone else's payment of it. . .that someone being God himself, Jesus Christ. For the debt has to be paid in order for God's justice to be satisfied and the debt cancelled (forgiven).

God is just. . .and that means sin must be paid for, which is why Jesus came to die as a ransom (Mt 20:28) to buy us back, free us from our debt to God's justice of condemnation.
You diminish the righteousess and holiness of God by treating sin so lightly.

NT forgiving eliminates the need for the believer to pay the debt because Jesus paid it for him. . .but the debt will be paid, by Jesus through faith, or by oneself at the judgment.

This "justice" is not some cosmic "Law" God has to follow

Contraire. . .

Justice (as well as all his other attributes) is God's nature, which is a "cosmic" law (if ever there was one) which does not change.

and where are you finding the "Law/justice in the Bible

The OT is rife with it. . .not to mention the definition of the word itself.

outside of what you think atonement is teaching.
Do you and all Christians have to humbly accept Jesus Christ and him Crucified, with Jesus Christ and Him Crucified being the ransom payment?

It's not about accepting. . .it's about fleeing to Jesus for mercy from God's justice, apart from which mercy there is only condemnation for everyone.

Your human notions of justice and forgiveness diminish God and the atoning work of his Son.

 

[Clare73]

Doesn't make them right. What happened to the forgive 70 x 7?

Because we are not the judge of men, only God is.

Sin is against God, not us.

 

[timothyu]

Because we are not the judge of men, only God is.

If He promoted the idea, one would think He would follow it

 

[Clare73]

If He promoted the idea, one would think He would follow it

He didn't "promote" it, he commanded it for fallen men who are not the Judge.

He is not fallen and is the Judge..

 

[timothyu]

He is not fallen and is the Judge..

Right, so it wasn't a case of do as I say and not as I do. There would have been forgiveness, not payment. Blood sacrifice was a human desire. It comes in handy to this day in a different form where ritual replaces outright responsibility on the part of people to actually change to serve God's will. In some cases they even say belief is enough.

 

[Clare73]

Right, so it wasn't a case of do as I say and not as I do. There would have been forgiveness, not payment. Blood sacrifice was a human desire. It comes in handy to this day in a different form where ritual replaces outright responsibility on the part of people to actually change to serve God's will. In some cases they even say belief is enough.

Neither case was possible. . .man is fallen.

 

[timothyu]

Neither case was possible. . .man is fallen.

I was referring to God.