PDA

View Full Version : Did Jesus Pay Our Debt?



holyrokker
Nov 16th 2008, 10:57 PM
I've often heard people say that "Jesus paid our debt". Did he?

- What was our debt?
-To whom did He make payment?
-If He paid our debt, are we really forgiven?

Matthew 18:23-27
"Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.' And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt.

Was payment made to the king for this man's debt? No. The king forgave the debt.

If I owe $10,000 to my credit card company, and my father pays the bill, is my bill forgiven, or paid off?

If I owe $10,000 to my credit card company, and nobodt pays my bill, but the credit card company says "Don't worry about it. The bill doesn't need to be paid" - Then I'd be forgiven.

Kahtar
Nov 16th 2008, 11:05 PM
Our debt is that every one of us has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
God is absolute perfection, and requires absolute perfection.
Since none of us are absolutely perfect, we all fall short. We all sin.
The end result of sin is death, eternal separation from God.
In every single case, for every sin of every man woman and child on the planet, death will be required, and death will occur.
Jesus Christ died that death in our place. He paid the price, which is death.
Now we are faced with a choice. We can either accept the payment He made for us in our behalf, freely offered to us, or, we can pay that penalty ourselves.
If we accept what He did in our place, then truly our 'King forgives our debt', because He paid it Himself. It gets paid either way.

holyrokker
Nov 16th 2008, 11:14 PM
Our debt is that every one of us has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
God is absolute perfection, and requires absolute perfection.
Since none of us are absolutely perfect, we all fall short. We all sin.
The end result of sin is death, eternal separation from God.
In every single case, for every sin of every man woman and child on the planet, death will be required, and death will occur.
Jesus Christ died that death in our place. He paid the price, which is death.
Now we are faced with a choice. We can either accept the payment He made for us in our behalf, freely offered to us, or, we can pay that penalty ourselves.
If we accept what He did in our place, then truly our 'King forgives our debt', because He paid it Himself. It gets paid either way.
I'm not sure what you mean what our debt is.

What do we owe to God that Jesus "paid"?

Is the penalty for our sin our debt?

mikebr
Nov 17th 2008, 12:00 AM
16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. [2] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=2+Corinthians+5#f2) The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling [3] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=2+Corinthians+5#f3) the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.


I'm not so sure about penal substitution any more?

looking4jesus
Nov 17th 2008, 12:15 AM
I'm not sure what you mean what our debt is.

What do we owe to God that Jesus "paid"?

Is the penalty for our sin our debt?

Yes you know what it is..
the wages of sin is death..simple Jesus paid for it by his blood and now we are able to live again as all since Adam have been dead from sin.
So what is really your question if you have one?
God Bless
Randy

Butch5
Nov 17th 2008, 04:48 AM
I've often heard people say that "Jesus paid our debt". Did he?

- What was our debt?
-To whom did He make payment?
-If He paid our debt, are we really forgiven?

Matthew 18:23-27

Was payment made to the king for this man's debt? No. The king forgave the debt.

If I owe $10,000 to my credit card company, and my father pays the bill, is my bill forgiven, or paid off?

If I owe $10,000 to my credit card company, and nobodt pays my bill, but the credit card company says "Don't worry about it. The bill doesn't need to be paid" - Then I'd be forgiven.


You my friend, are 100% correct. Our sins were forgiven by God. There was a ransom paid to Satan to redeem us, which was Christ's life. He gave His life for ours. But there was no payment made to God. This idea of a payment to God came from a Catholic theologian named Anselm around the year 1100 A.D. Prior to this no one held to this idea.

For some reason the links are not working, if you cut and paste them into your browser they will work.

Here is a link to the Satisfaction model form Anselm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_(Satisfaction_view)

and Here is a link to the Ransom or Classic view, held by the early church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_(Ransom_view)

BrckBrln
Nov 17th 2008, 06:39 AM
There was a ransom paid to Satan to redeem us

:o I think I just threw up.

markedward
Nov 17th 2008, 07:16 AM
There was a ransom paid to Satan to redeem us, which was Christ's life.Where does the Bible say Satan held us for ransom?

Scripture does say that Jesus paid our "ransom", but since when does it say that Satan was the one being paid?

It was God who required a "payment" to be settled for our sins, since He is the one who requires the justice. Jesus paid the price for that justice in our place, so He was paying the "ransom" to God, not Satan.

Walstib
Nov 17th 2008, 02:19 PM
Hi ___ , should I call you Butch?

There was a ransom paid to Satan to redeem us, which was Christ's life.

I cant figure out what Adam and Eve got when they sold humanity to the enemy. Do they still have it? I figure they lost almost everything in the fall.

I can't see God tricked the devil. I don't think He needs to trick him. Reading the beginning of Job I figure the enemy does nothing without God's permission.

And just a point that you don't know what all men believed at any point in time to accurately profess "no one held this idea".

Can I ask you if you also believe Jesus took on the nature of Satan and died in hell. For context and all...

Peace,

Joe

*I think your links need fixing*

watchinginawe
Nov 17th 2008, 02:59 PM
I've often heard people say that "Jesus paid our debt". Did he?

The end result of sin is death, eternal separation from God.
In every single case, for every sin of every man woman and child on the planet, death will be required, and death will occur.
Jesus Christ died that death in our place. He paid the price, which is death.
Now we are faced with a choice. We can either accept the payment He made for us in our behalf, freely offered to us, or, we can pay that penalty ourselves.
If we accept what He did in our place, then truly our 'King forgives our debt', because He paid it Himself. It gets paid either way.
Yes you know what it is..
the wages of sin is death..simple Jesus paid for it by his blood and now we are able to live again as all since Adam have been dead from sin.I agree with the above answers. I will only add why Jesus was able to pay the debt and not some other man.

First, the debt:

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; (to be continued)

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: (to be continued)

Death and then judgment where every man will be found lacking. There is no way past this for man.

Now Jesus Christ, God Himself, was also made a man but not in the conventional way. Jesus was the only begotten Son of God, conceived by the Holy Ghost instead of man. Being a man, Jesus lived a perfect and acceptable life. Jesus ultimately suffered death just like the rest of us. BUT, HOWEVER, Jesus suffered death without owing the wages of sin. Jesus' life was therefore given where no debt was owed. The Apostle Peter offers in his sermon on the day of Pentecost:

Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

So by being found as a man without sin Jesus suffered death on our behalf. Having died without the penalty of death upon Him, Jesus became victorious over death and was raised again! Death had no claim on our Lord and Saviour! Paul offers: Instead of posting it, please take a moment and read this whole chapter of 1 Corinthians 15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=15&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=54) straight through.

Now, getting back to our two verses above, they are completed thusly:

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; (to be continued) but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

and

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: (to be continued)

28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

God Bless!

Butch5
Nov 17th 2008, 03:04 PM
:o I think I just threw up.

Hi BrckBrln,

Just one question, did you read the articles?

Butch5
Nov 17th 2008, 03:06 PM
Where does the Bible say Satan held us for ransom?

Scripture does say that Jesus paid our "ransom", but since when does it say that Satan was the one being paid?

It was God who required a "payment" to be settled for our sins, since He is the one who requires the justice. Jesus paid the price for that justice in our place, so He was paying the "ransom" to God, not Satan.


Hi Markedward,

Before we get into a discussion of this, please read the articles. Please Google Anselm Of Canterbury. I will gladly discuss this, however you will need to at least have basic idea of what the two doctrine say.

watchinginawe
Nov 17th 2008, 03:14 PM
You my friend, are 100% correct. Our sins were forgiven by God. There was a ransom paid to Satan to redeem us, which was Christ's life. He gave His life for ours. But there was no payment made to God. This idea of a payment to God came from a Catholic theologian named Anselm around the year 1100 A.D. Prior to this no one held to this idea.

Here is a link to the Satisfaction model form Anselm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_(Satisfaction_view)

and Here is a link to the Ransom or Classic view, held by the early church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_(Ransom_view) I have fixed the links in the above by adding the right parentheses to the link.

God Bless!

Butch5
Nov 17th 2008, 03:23 PM
Walstib---I cant figure out what Adam and Eve got when they sold humanity to the enemy. Do they still have it? I figure they lost almost everything in the fall.

They didn't sell humanity, they were basically kidnapped. They were fooled by Satan into disobeying God, thereby committing sin. They chose to obey Satan rather than God, and fell under his control. Hence Jesus telling the Jews, you are of your father the devil.


Walstib----I can't see God tricked the devil. I don't think He needs to trick him. Reading the beginning of Job I figure the enemy does nothing without God's permission.

No , God doesn't need to trick him, however because Adam willingly gave himself over to Satan, Satan has power over Adam.


Walstib----And just a point that you don't know what all men believed at any point in time to accurately profess "no one held this idea".

Surely you didn't think that I meant every single human being who ever lived before the year 1100 held this positon. I was speaking of the Church, the major writers in the church held this posotion.


Walstib----Can I ask you if you also believe Jesus took on the nature of Satan and died in hell. For context and all...

I did not say anyone took on the nature of Satan. I simply said, Adam and Eve fell under the power or authority of Satan. No Jesus did not, he was born of a virgin and had no sin.

Walstib
Nov 17th 2008, 03:52 PM
They didn't sell humanity, they were basically kidnapped. They were fooled by Satan into disobeying God, thereby committing sin. They chose to obey Satan rather than God, and fell under his control. Hence Jesus telling the Jews, you are of your father the devil.

I was just going by the definition in the link you gave. *shrug* I agree with this in principle.


No , God doesn't need to trick him, however because Adam willingly gave himself over to Satan, Satan has power over Adam.

I again agree without nitpicking apart the words.


Surely you didn't think that I meant every single human being who ever lived before the year 1100 held this position. I was speaking of the Church, the major writers in the church held this position.

I guess I am persnickety about words and accept them at face value. That and I don't generally connect the earthly church with the spiritual Church.


I did not say anyone took on the nature of Satan. I simply said, Adam and Eve fell under the power or authority of Satan. No Jesus did not, he was born of a virgin and had no sin.

Well I will say I am glad about this. Many who subscribe to the ransom theory nowadays agree with the teachings of the "Word of faith" movement... as stated in the link you posted. Hence my question for your fuller context. Thanks for clarifying.

Grace and peace,

Joe

Firefighter
Nov 17th 2008, 04:06 PM
- What was our debt? Death

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.


-To whom did He make payment? God.

God is the money lender in Luke 7 41-43. We are able to see a direct correlation in verse 44-48.


-If He paid our debt, are we really forgiven? Yes.

Col 2:13-14 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

Diolectic
Nov 17th 2008, 04:17 PM
I've often heard people say that "Jesus paid our debt". Did he?

- What was our debt?Our debt was to take on the charges which were given. We were to pay the debt of the judgment against us.

Gal.3:13, Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law.
The curse is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them."(Gal.3:10)

Purchasing/redeeming from the judgment of sin which is our forgiveness(Ephesians 1:7 & 1 Corinthians 6:20 & 7:23).



-To whom did He make payment?He made payment to the law. Because it was the law which was calling for restitution.


-If He paid our debt, are we really forgiven?It was a law to be satisfied and a ransom to be paid.
A God to be appeased and a God which is to forgive.

The law can not forgive, the law was broken, the law must be satisfied.
God will forgive and He does, God was offended (not broken) and must be appeased(not satisfied).
After He forgave us, he was appeased by Christ's atonement and He paid our ransom to satisfy the law.
Think of it as two entities that needed to be delt with.
The Law was broken and needed to be satisfied.
God was offended and needed to be appeased.

We offended God and He forgave us of the offense against Himself.
Then he had mercy toward us and paid our ransom of which we were held slave to.


Matthew 18:23-27
Was payment made to the king for this man's debt? No. The king forgave the debt.

If I owe $10,000 to my credit card company, and my father pays the bill, is my bill forgiven, or paid off?

If I owe $10,000 to my credit card company, and nobodt pays my bill, but the credit card company says "Don't worry about it. The bill doesn't need to be paid" - Then I'd be In Matthew 18:23, there was now law being transgressed, but a King being offended by a debt not veing payed.
However, the forgiveness of the debt was forgiven, but the King still lost money, it would be as if He, himself payed the debt.

Butch5
Nov 17th 2008, 04:20 PM
:o I think I just threw up.

Hi BrckBrln,

Why did you throw up? Is your doctrine more palatable? I say that an evil demon who hates God, kidnapped Gods children and was going to destroy them if God did not pay him a ransom. God's Son says to His Father, I will go and give my life in their place that they may live. God (through much agony, I suspect) agrees to let His own beloved Son lay down His life as the ransom that would set God's children free.

Your doctrine on the other hand, says, that God's children disobeyed Him, and since they disobeyed, He would kill them (even though it is in His power to forgive them). However rather than forgive them, He would kill them, but instead of killing them He would kill His only begotten Son in their place. Why? Because He demanded justice.

John says "God is love", how loving is your doctrine and how loving is mine? God says throughout the Scriptures, "I will forgive their sins", with you doctrine, God does not forgive, even though it is within His power to do so.

So, God commands us to forgive, yet He doesn't???

Here's something else to think about.


Jeremiah 31:31-34 ( KJV ) 31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.



Ezekiel 16:20-22 ( KJV ) 20Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter, 21That thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them? 22And in all thine abominations and thy whoredoms thou hast not remembered the days of thy youth, when thou wast naked and bare, and wast polluted in thy blood.

Ezekiel 16:35-37 ( KJV ) 35Wherefore, O harlot, hear the word of the LORD: 36Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thy filthiness was poured out, and thy nakedness discovered through thy whoredoms with thy lovers, and with all the idols of thy abominations, and by the blood of thy children, which thou didst give unto them; 37Behold, therefore I will gather all thy lovers, with whom thou hast taken pleasure, and all them that thou hast loved, with all them that thou hast hated; I will even gather them round about against thee, and will discover thy nakedness unto them, that they may see all thy nakedness.

These passages are in the middle of a scathing rebuke from God to Israel, read the chapter. In it God rebukes the Israelites for sacrificing their children to appease the gods of the heathens, are we to believe, that God says this is an abomination to Him, and then to understand, that He did the same thing, that He says is an abomination???????



Ezekiel 20:29-33 ( KJV ) 29Then I said unto them, What is the high place whereunto ye go? And the name thereof is called Bamah unto this day. 30Wherefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Are ye polluted after the manner of your fathers? and commit ye whoredom after their abominations? 31For when ye offer your gifts, when ye make your sons to pass through the fire, ye pollute yourselves with all your idols, even unto this day: and shall I be inquired of by you, O house of Israel? As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I will not be inquired of by you. 32And that which cometh into your mind shall not be at all, that ye say, We will be as the heathen, as the families of the countries, to serve wood and stone.



33As I live, saith the Lord GOD, surely with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with fury poured out, will I rule over you:




Ezekiel 23:36-39 ( KJV ) 36The LORD said moreover unto me; Son of man, wilt thou judge Aholah and Aholibah? yea, declare unto them their abominations; 37That they have committed adultery, and blood is in their hands, and with their idols have they committed adultery, and have also caused their sons, whom they bare unto me, to pass for them through the fire, to devour them. 38Moreover this they have done unto me: they have defiled my sanctuary in the same day, and have profaned my sabbaths. 39For when they had slain their children to their idols, then they came the same day into my sanctuary to profane it; and, lo, thus have they done in the midst of mine house.




Jeremiah 19:3-6 ( KJV ) 3And say, Hear ye the word of the LORD, O kings of Judah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem; Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, the which whosoever heareth, his ears shall tingle. 4Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents; 5They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind: 6Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter.




Jeremiah 32:32-35 ( KJV ) 32Because of all the evil of the children of Israel and of the children of Judah, which they have done to provoke me to anger, they, their kings, their princes, their priests, and their prophets, and the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. 33And they have turned unto me the back, and not the face: though I taught them, rising up early and teaching them, yet they have not hearkened to receive instruction. 34But they set their abominations in the house, which is called by my name, to defile it. 35And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.



God says it is an abomination to offer their sons and daughters to idols, He says it never entered His mind. These verses of Scripture present some real challenges to your (satisfaction) model of the atonement.

As stated in the OP, your sins cannot be both paid for and forgiven, the two are mutually exclusive.

mikebr
Nov 17th 2008, 04:29 PM
Yes you know what it is..
the wages of sin is death..simple Jesus paid for it by his blood and now we are able to live again as all since Adam have been dead from sin.
So what is really your question if you have one?
God Bless
Randy


The wages of sin is death BUT the GIFT of God is eternal life. A gift doesn't pay for anything. If it does its not a gift.:hmm:

Butch5
Nov 17th 2008, 04:47 PM
Where does the Bible say Satan held us for ransom?

Scripture does say that Jesus paid our "ransom", but since when does it say that Satan was the one being paid?

It was God who required a "payment" to be settled for our sins, since He is the one who requires the justice. Jesus paid the price for that justice in our place, so He was paying the "ransom" to God, not Satan.


Colossians 1:12-15 ( KJV ) 12Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 13Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 14In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Colossians 1:12-15 ( YLT ) 12Giving thanks to the Father who did make us meet for the participation of the inheritance of the saints in the light, 13who did rescue us out of the authority of the darkness, and did translate us into the reign of the Son of His love, 14in whom we have the redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of the sins, 15who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation,


Hebrews 2:14-15 ( KJV ) 14Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.


Hebrews 2:14-15 ( YLT ) 14Seeing, then, the children have partaken of flesh and blood, he himself also in like manner did take part of the same, that through death he might destroy him having the power of death—that is, the devil—15and might deliver those, whoever, with fear of death, throughout all their life, were subjects of bondage,

Butch5
Nov 17th 2008, 04:57 PM
Where does the Bible say Satan held us for ransom?

Scripture does say that Jesus paid our "ransom", but since when does it say that Satan was the one being paid?

It was God who required a "payment" to be settled for our sins, since He is the one who requires the justice. Jesus paid the price for that justice in our place, so He was paying the "ransom" to God, not Satan.

First, can you show me Scripture that says God requires payment for sins?

Second, a ransom is paid to the one who is holding someone in captivity. Did Jesus pay a ransom to free us from God, so that He could give us to God???

When a child is kidnapped, is the ransom paid to the father? Or is it paid to the kidnapper?

If the ransom was paid to God, who did He kidnap us from?

Just some things to think about.

When all you have known is the Satisfaction model of the atonement, other things seem odd. However as you spend time studying and thinking about these things you will begin to see that the Classic view of the atonement makes much more sense than the Satifaction or Penal model.

markedward
Nov 17th 2008, 05:42 PM
Hi Markedward,

Before we get into a discussion of this, please read the articles.I did.


Please Google Anselm Of Canterbury.I've read Anselm's work, but it was a while ago, so I didn't feel like grabbing the whole book of the shelf. Instead, I found summaries. Most people seem to agree that Anselm argued against the "ransom to Satan" theory.

And I still disagree with the idea that it was Satan being ransomed. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I didn't read anything about it.

Scripture does show that we were under the power of sin, and in bondage to Satan, as seen in the verses you provided. But that does not mean that a "ransom" was paid to Satan. Scripture, on multiple occasions, says that Jesus' sacrifice was for God. Scripture, on multiple occasions, says God demands justice for our sins, and the judgment is death. Since it is God's justice, and God's decree that death is the judgment, then it is God whose justice needs to be satisfied. Claiming that it was Satan who was being paid off completely undermines that it was God who demanded the justice at all. And since Scripture repeatedly states that Christ died to take away our sins, He was taking our place in regards to God's justice, and hence took our place in regards to our judgment.

God said "This justice needs to be dispensed." And Jesus took it upon Himself. Jesus was satisfying God's need for justice, not Satan's.

Let's also take a look at two of the things Christ said when He was on the cross. One, "Into Your hands I commit My spirit." According to the "ransom to Satan" view, Jesus had to have been saying this to Satan. But Luke 23:46 directly says Jesus was addressing God, saying that He was committing His spirit to God. Not to Satan.

As for the second one, let's examine these verses.

John 19:28-30 After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the Scripture), "I thirst." A jar full of sour wine stood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a hyssop branch and held it to his mouth. When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, "It is finished," and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

19:28 directly says that "all was now finished" (or completed, accomplished, according to other translations). What was it that was finished? According to the "ransom to Satan" view, Christ's work wasn't finished at this time, but according to Christ it was, when He said "It is finished." What was finished? His redemptive work. He had successfully completed His work to redeem man to God. (In Greek, it is the same word used for "finished" in both 19:28 and 19:30.) Since Scripture says that Christ was sacrificed in order to satisfy God, and Christ said that "It is finished" right before He died in His sacrifice, everything points God as the one being "paid the ransom", not Satan.


When all you have known is the Satisfaction model of the atonement, other things seem odd. However as you spend time studying and thinking about these things you will begin to see that the Classic view of the atonement makes much more sense than the Satifaction or Penal model.First, do not make assumptions about me. Who said "all I've known" was the satisfaction model? I didn't. And since I did not relate any information about what I've previously "known" means you have zero right to claim that it is all I've known. Second, do not assume I haven't studied the Ransom-to-Satan view. Just because I disagree does not mean I haven't studied it. Got it?

Teke
Nov 17th 2008, 05:49 PM
16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. [2] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=2+Corinthians+5#f2) The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling [3] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=2+Corinthians+5#f3) the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.


I'm not so sure about penal substitution any more?


Absolutely correct Mike. :)
No penal substitution involved.

Teke
Nov 17th 2008, 06:39 PM
When all you have known is the Satisfaction model of the atonement, other things seem odd. However as you spend time studying and thinking about these things you will begin to see that the Classic view of the atonement makes much more sense than the Satifaction or Penal model.

Indeed. Anslem and Augustine were major players in how the western church understood the English word "atonement". But the western church has misunderstood this concept. A cultural effect also played a part, as in Europe there was the concept of "bloodguilt" added to the line of thinking which developed into what we see today.

I'll just say again, in reference to understanding this subject, what I posted in another thread (the faith of Christ and our faith in Christ).
"In Greek the word "perienchoresis" (from 'perichoresis') which is also associated with Trinitarian theology, is a sharing or exchange."
From the concept of this Greek word is where all the "exchange" ideals come from. Without Trinitarian theology applied there is likely the chance of erring on this subject. The Greek "one another" words also apply to this concept (atonement).

Butch5
Nov 18th 2008, 03:06 AM
I did.

I've read Anselm's work, but it was a while ago, so I didn't feel like grabbing the whole book of the shelf. Instead, I found summaries. Most people seem to agree that Anselm argued against the "ransom to Satan" theory.

And I still disagree with the idea that it was Satan being ransomed. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I didn't read anything about it.

Scripture does show that we were under the power of sin, and in bondage to Satan, as seen in the verses you provided. But that does not mean that a "ransom" was paid to Satan. Scripture, on multiple occasions, says that Jesus' sacrifice was for God. Scripture, on multiple occasions, says God demands justice for our sins, and the judgment is death. Since it is God's justice, and God's decree that death is the judgment, then it is God whose justice needs to be satisfied. Claiming that it was Satan who was being paid off completely undermines that it was God who demanded the justice at all. And since Scripture repeatedly states that Christ died to take away our sins, He was taking our place in regards to God's justice, and hence took our place in regards to our judgment.

God said "This justice needs to be dispensed." And Jesus took it upon Himself. Jesus was satisfying God's need for justice, not Satan's.

Let's also take a look at two of the things Christ said when He was on the cross. One, "Into Your hands I commit My spirit." According to the "ransom to Satan" view, Jesus had to have been saying this to Satan. But Luke 23:46 directly says Jesus was addressing God, saying that He was committing His spirit to God. Not to Satan.

As for the second one, let's examine these verses.

John 19:28-30 After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the Scripture), "I thirst." A jar full of sour wine stood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a hyssop branch and held it to his mouth. When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, "It is finished," and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

19:28 directly says that "all was now finished" (or completed, accomplished, according to other translations). What was it that was finished? According to the "ransom to Satan" view, Christ's work wasn't finished at this time, but according to Christ it was, when He said "It is finished." What was finished? His redemptive work. He had successfully completed His work to redeem man to God. (In Greek, it is the same word used for "finished" in both 19:28 and 19:30.) Since Scripture says that Christ was sacrificed in order to satisfy God, and Christ said that "It is finished" right before He died in His sacrifice, everything points God as the one being "paid the ransom", not Satan.

First, do not make assumptions about me. Who said "all I've known" was the satisfaction model? I didn't. And since I did not relate any information about what I've previously "known" means you have zero right to claim that it is all I've known. Second, do not assume I haven't studied the Ransom-to-Satan view. Just because I disagree does not mean I haven't studied it. Got it?

Well, since you want to have an attitude about it, I guess there is no reason to discuss it. However, I notice you keep saving Scripture says that payment was to God, yet have not supplied a single verse. It seems funny to me that nobody in the church for 1100 years understood the atonement until Anselm came along and explained it to everyone.

Butch5
Nov 18th 2008, 03:09 AM
Indeed. Anslem and Augustine were major players in how the western church understood the English word "atonement". But the western church has misunderstood this concept. A cultural effect also played a part, as in Europe there was the concept of "bloodguilt" added to the line of thinking which developed into what we see today.

I'll just say again, in reference to understanding this subject, what I posted in another thread (the faith of Christ and our faith in Christ).
"In Greek the word "perienchoresis" (from 'perichoresis') which is also associated with Trinitarian theology, is a sharing or exchange."
From the concept of this Greek word is where all the "exchange" ideals come from. Without Trinitarian theology applied there is likely the chance of erring on this subject. The Greek "one another" words also apply to this concept (atonement).

In my opinion the western church has misunderstood just about everything

markedward
Nov 18th 2008, 07:06 AM
Well, since you want to have an attitude about it, I guess there is no reason to discuss it.I don't have "an attitude" about it. It is simply that I cannot stand it when people pretend they know the extent of my knowledge on a subject. You wouldn't very much like it if I made assumptions about what you know, so why would you think I wouldn't mind it that you made assumptions about what I know?


However, I notice you keep saying Scripture says that payment was to God, yet have not supplied a single verse.This, I admit, was laziness on my part. I've been jumping on the forums whilst I've been working all day on a lengthy essay for my art history class and a design for my publication-design class.

The verses you posted, however, do not claim that a "ransom" was being paid to Satan. They do, however, claim that Christ's sacrifice freed us from our "bondage" to sin. This does not, however, mean that Satan was being paid.

Ephesians 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

Mankind is in sin. And it is God who demands the payment for their sins. Right here it says "Christ_gave Himself up for us_to God". Not "to Satan". And again...

Hebrews 9:14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

Two different ways to read this. "The blood of Christ_offered_to God" or "Christ_offered Himself_to God". No offering is being made "to Satan" to free mankind. An offering is being made "to God". Also note what chapter and book this verse is found in. Hebrews. Chapter 9. The book and chapter that compares the Old Covenant temple sacrifices - made to God - with the New Covenant one sacrifice - made to God.

Further:

Hosea 13:14 I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. Where, O death, are your plagues? Where, O grave, is your destruction?

Paul made a distinctly similar statement (roughly, he was paraphrasing this verse).

1 Corinthians 15:55-56 Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting? The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.

So... let's see. By combining these two verses, we get the following. (A) God states that He will "ransom" His people from the "power of death". (B) The "sting" of death is sin. (C) The power of sin is the Law.

Who gave the Law? God did. What is the Law? God's righteous and holy standard. What are we condemned in? Our sins. What are we condemned by? God's Law. We are condemned in our sins by God's Law, and the Law condemns us to death. But God "ransoms" us from the power of death, which as Paul says, is found in the Law. So when Jesus "ransoms" us, He is "ransoming" us from our condemnation under the Law of God. So in order to "ransom" us He offered Himself to God. We are not condemned under Satan - we are condemned under God's Law. Christ did not offer Himself to Satan to save us from the condemnation found in our sins - Christ offered Himself to God to save us from the condemnation found under His Law.


It seems funny to me that nobody in the church for 1100 years understood the atonement until Anselm came along and explained it to everyone.Just as funny as nobody in the church understood that Jesus wasn't establishing a papacy through Peter until the Reformation came along? Trying to use this as evidence that the "ransom to Satan" doctrine is the correct one is faulty. Just because a believe was popular for a long amount of time doesn't mean it was the correct belief. Re: horned-Moses, Satan = Lucifer, etc.

9Marksfan
Nov 18th 2008, 09:52 AM
It seems funny to me that nobody in the church for 1100 years understood the atonement until Anselm came along and explained it to everyone.

What do you think of Athanasius' views?

Walstib
Nov 19th 2008, 12:21 AM
They didn't sell humanity, they were basically kidnapped........

......Adam willingly gave himself over to Satan.

My agreement with you in principle has not been sitting well with my conscience. I don't agree with the word kidnapped.

That and I don't understand how someone can willingly give themselves to the kidnapper and it still be a kidnapping.

Peace,

Joe

Butch5
Nov 19th 2008, 02:50 AM
I don't have "an attitude" about it. It is simply that I cannot stand it when people pretend they know the extent of my knowledge on a subject. You wouldn't very much like it if I made assumptions about what you know, so why would you think I wouldn't mind it that you made assumptions about what I know?

This, I admit, was laziness on my part. I've been jumping on the forums whilst I've been working all day on a lengthy essay for my art history class and a design for my publication-design class.

The verses you posted, however, do not claim that a "ransom" was being paid to Satan. They do, however, claim that Christ's sacrifice freed us from our "bondage" to sin. This does not, however, mean that Satan was being paid.

Ephesians 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

Mankind is in sin. And it is God who demands the payment for their sins. Right here it says "Christ_gave Himself up for us_to God". Not "to Satan". And again...

Hebrews 9:14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

Two different ways to read this. "The blood of Christ_offered_to God" or "Christ_offered Himself_to God". No offering is being made "to Satan" to free mankind. An offering is being made "to God". Also note what chapter and book this verse is found in. Hebrews. Chapter 9. The book and chapter that compares the Old Covenant temple sacrifices - made to God - with the New Covenant one sacrifice - made to God.

Further:

Hosea 13:14 I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. Where, O death, are your plagues? Where, O grave, is your destruction?

Paul made a distinctly similar statement (roughly, he was paraphrasing this verse).

1 Corinthians 15:55-56 Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting? The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.

So... let's see. By combining these two verses, we get the following. (A) God states that He will "ransom" His people from the "power of death". (B) The "sting" of death is sin. (C) The power of sin is the Law.

Who gave the Law? God did. What is the Law? God's righteous and holy standard. What are we condemned in? Our sins. What are we condemned by? God's Law. We are condemned in our sins by God's Law, and the Law condemns us to death. But God "ransoms" us from the power of death, which as Paul says, is found in the Law. So when Jesus "ransoms" us, He is "ransoming" us from our condemnation under the Law of God. So in order to "ransom" us He offered Himself to God. We are not condemned under Satan - we are condemned under God's Law. Christ did not offer Himself to Satan to save us from the condemnation found in our sins - Christ offered Himself to God to save us from the condemnation found under His Law.

Just as funny as nobody in the church understood that Jesus wasn't establishing a papacy through Peter until the Reformation came along? Trying to use this as evidence that the "ransom to Satan" doctrine is the correct one is faulty. Just because a believe was popular for a long amount of time doesn't mean it was the correct belief. Re: horned-Moses, Satan = Lucifer, etc.

First let me say, I was not pretending to know the extent of your knowledge. I was merely trying to make sure that you had a basic understanding of both doctrines. Usually when I talk about the Classic view a bunch of people will invariable chime in who have no idea what the doctrine is or what it says, yet the will argue till the cows come home.
So, I just wanted to make sure that you did understand.

Concerning the atonement, I didn't say that Christ only, redeemed us from Satan, it is one of many things Christ accomplished on the cross. Christ did offer Himself to God, however what kind of sacrifice would you have that be?? God said He hated it when the Israelites sacrificed their sons and daughters, He called it an abomination, He said it never came into His mind. Does God say this is an abomination and then do this to Christ???


Markedward---1 Corinthians 15:55-56 Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting? The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.



Yes, and who has the power of death?

Hebrews 2:14-15 ( KJV ) 14Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Hebrews 2:16-18 ( KJV ) 16For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 17Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

How did He make reconciliation for their sins? He Himself being tempted. He surely wasn't tempted by God to sin. He was tempted of the devil and remained sinless. This is how He can reconcile our sins.

John tells us why Christ came,


1 John 3:8 ( KJV ) 8He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

This is why He came to earth, John makes no mention of a payment to God.


Colossians 1:12-14 ( KJV ) 12Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 13Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 14In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Notice the parallel Paul uses here, delivered us from the power of darkness, in verse 13, corresponds with, we have redemption through His blood, in verse 14. However in verse 13 Paul says that God delivered us from the power of darkness and translated us into the kingdom of his Son.

Can you show me Scripture that says God requires a payment or our sins?

One other thing, the doctrine you described in your post leaves no room for forgiveness. God says I will forgive their sins, not I will require payment for their sins.


Matthew 18:21-35 ( KJV ) 21Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? 22Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven. 23Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants. 24And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents. 25But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. 26The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. 27Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt. 28But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest. 29And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. 30And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt. 31So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done. 32Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: 33Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? 34And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. 35So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

Butch5
Nov 19th 2008, 02:59 AM
My agreement with you in principle has not been sitting well with my conscience. I don't agree with the word kidnapped.

That and I don't understand how someone can willingly give themselves to the kidnapper and it still be a kidnapping.

Peace,

Joe

They were fooled, kind of like when someone offers candy to child and grabs them. The child goes willingly up to the car and then is snatched. Likewise, Adam and Eve were tricked into believing Satan. He said "has God said"? He got them to question God, then He convinced them to eat. They were duped. Remember there was no evil up to this point, so they would not have had reason to be cautious.

Kahtar
Nov 19th 2008, 04:21 AM
Well, holyrokker, I hope you found your answers somewhere in all this........

markedward
Nov 19th 2008, 04:27 AM
Remember there was no evil up to this point, so they would not have had reason to be cautious.They did have reason to be cautious:

God: "Eating of this tree will cause you to die."
Serpent: "Eating of this tree will not cause you to die."

The moment they got conflicting statements they had "reason to be cautious" - the serpent was telling them something contradictory to what God had told them, so they immediately had "reason to be cautious" of the serpent. Instead, they threw caution to the wind and ate anyway. They knew the truth and willingly chose to believe untruth.

The manner in which you are using kidnapping implies that Adam and Eve had no reason to suspect the serpent of trickery, as in, you claim that they didn't know the serpent's statement was suspicious. But we can see plain as day that they were told two conflicting statements "You can't" and "You can", in which, we have little reason to claim they shouldn't have been suspicious. They may not have sinned yet, but the moment they were handed mutually exclusive statements, they should have known something was just not quite right.

Butch5
Nov 19th 2008, 05:01 AM
They did have reason to be cautious:

God: "Eating of this tree will cause you to die."
Serpent: "Eating of this tree will not cause you to die."

The moment they got conflicting statements they had "reason to be cautious" - the serpent was telling them something contradictory to what God had told them, so they immediately had "reason to be cautious" of the serpent. Instead, they threw caution to the wind and ate anyway. They knew the truth and willingly chose to believe untruth.

The manner in which you are using kidnapping implies that Adam and Eve had no reason to suspect the serpent of trickery, as in, you claim that they didn't know the serpent's statement was suspicious. But we can see plain as day that they were told two conflicting statements "You can't" and "You can", in which, we have little reason to claim they shouldn't have been suspicious. They may not have sinned yet, but the moment they were handed mutually exclusive statements, they should have known something was just not quite right.

They probably did, however remember, their was as yet no lie, no fear, no deceit, and so on. They didn't have the life experiences that we have because they lived in a perfect world. Yes, they knew they should not eat from the tree because God said so, but that is about all they knew.

markedward
Nov 19th 2008, 06:26 AM
This is why He came to earth, John makes no mention of a payment to God.Would you mind, please, in responding specifically to the two verses I posted before? Specifically, Ephesians 5:2 and Hebrews 9:14, in which each of them directly states that Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice up to God?

If He was being handed over to Satan as a "ransom" for mankind, as you say, why do these verses directly state He was offering Himself to God, and thus not Satan?


One other thing, the doctrine you described in your post leaves no room for forgiveness. God says I will forgive their sins, not I will require payment for their sins.On this I agree... slightly. Before I was taking a "substitutionary" view of His sacrifice. However, reviewing it in the last few hours, I suppose "substitutionary" doesn't fit. This was, I admit, my own misguidance, interpreting "for us" as "in place of us". But now I read it "for us". So, when it says He was offered as a sacrifice "for us" to God, I interpret it as that. Jesus offered Himself up as a sacrifice (not as a substitute; here you are correct) to God (not to Satan; here you are in conflict, I believe, with the two previously mentioned verses which explicitly state Christ offered Himself to God, and not to Satan).

Butch5
Nov 19th 2008, 03:26 PM
Would you mind, please, in responding specifically to the two verses I posted before? Specifically, Ephesians 5:2 and Hebrews 9:14, in which each of them directly states that Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice up to God?

If He was being handed over to Satan as a "ransom" for mankind, as you say, why do these verses directly state He was offering Himself to God, and thus not Satan?

On this I agree... slightly. Before I was taking a "substitutionary" view of His sacrifice. However, reviewing it in the last few hours, I suppose "substitutionary" doesn't fit. This was, I admit, my own misguidance, interpreting "for us" as "in place of us". But now I read it "for us". So, when it says He was offered as a sacrifice "for us" to God, I interpret it as that. Jesus offered Himself up as a sacrifice (not as a substitute; here you are correct) to God (not to Satan; here you are in conflict, I believe, with the two previously mentioned verses which explicitly state Christ offered Himself to God, and not to Satan).

Christ offered Himself to God in that, man messed everything up. Jesus offered to come and fix everything that man had messed up. Basically, He said, I'll go fix it. That is an offering to God.

Ephesians 5:2. look at the context of the passage, in verse one Paul says, therefore, This means what he is going to tell them, he is saying because of what he has just said. He has been exhorting them to walk upright as Jesus did. The life Christ led on earth was a sweet smelling savor before God. Keep in mind that Jesus was a king, He was royalty to the utmost, just the fact that He came and lived in the flesh is a tremendous sacrifice. We have no idea of how majestic he is in the heavenly realm. However consider what He said in His prayer,

John 17:5 ( KJV ) 5And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

This alone is a sacrifice that we cannot comprehend. And He did this for God, to redeem God's children. Everything He did in the Atonement, He did for God.

Hebrews 9:14 ( KJV ) 14How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Again, as I said everything He did in the atonement was for God. It says He offered Himself without spot to God, He was sinless, perfect. He lived the law perfectly. But what is this sacrifice? If we say He died as a sacrifice to appease God's wrath, if that was the purpose of the sacrifice, how do we reconcile that with Scripture?

Hebrews 10:3-10 ( KJV ) 3But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. 4For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. 5Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. 8Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

OK, we see that God had no pleasure in the OT sacrifices. He said offering for sin thou wouldest not. God didn't want that. Why would God not want animal offerings for sin, yet want His Son offered for sin??? Look also at what God said in the OT,

Ezekiel 16:20-22 ( KJV ) 20Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter, 21That thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them? 22And in all thine abominations and thy whoredoms thou hast not remembered the days of thy youth, when thou wast naked and bare, and wast polluted in thy blood.

Ezekiel 16:35-37 ( KJV ) 35Wherefore, O harlot, hear the word of the LORD: 36Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thy filthiness was poured out, and thy nakedness discovered through thy whoredoms with thy lovers, and with all the idols of thy abominations, and by the blood of thy children, which thou didst give unto them; 37Behold, therefore I will gather all thy lovers, with whom thou hast taken pleasure, and all them that thou hast loved, with all them that thou hast hated; I will even gather them round about against thee, and will discover thy nakedness unto them, that they may see all thy nakedness.

These passages are in the middle of a scathing rebuke from God to Israel, read the chapter. In it God rebukes the Israelites for sacrificing their children to appease the gods of the heathens, are we to believe, that God says this is an abomination to Him, and then to understand, that He did the same thing, that He says is an abomination???????

Ezekiel 20:29-33 ( KJV ) 29Then I said unto them, What is the high place whereunto ye go? And the name thereof is called Bamah unto this day. 30Wherefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Are ye polluted after the manner of your fathers? and commit ye whoredom after their abominations? 31For when ye offer your gifts, when ye make your sons to pass through the fire, ye pollute yourselves with all your idols, even unto this day: and shall I be inquired of by you, O house of Israel? As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I will not be inquired of by you. 32And that which cometh into your mind shall not be at all, that ye say, We will be as the heathen, as the families of the countries, to serve wood and stone.


33As I live, saith the Lord GOD, surely with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with fury poured out, will I rule over you:


Ezekiel 23:36-39 ( KJV ) 36The LORD said moreover unto me; Son of man, wilt thou judge Aholah and Aholibah? yea, declare unto them their abominations; 37That they have committed adultery, and blood is in their hands, and with their idols have they committed adultery, and have also caused their sons, whom they bare unto me, to pass for them through the fire, to devour them. 38Moreover this they have done unto me: they have defiled my sanctuary in the same day, and have profaned my sabbaths. 39For when they had slain their children to their idols, then they came the same day into my sanctuary to profane it; and, lo, thus have they done in the midst of mine house.


Jeremiah 19:3-6 ( KJV ) 3And say, Hear ye the word of the LORD, O kings of Judah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem; Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, the which whosoever heareth, his ears shall tingle. 4Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents; 5They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind: 6Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter.


Jeremiah 32:32-35 ( KJV ) 32Because of all the evil of the children of Israel and of the children of Judah, which they have done to provoke me to anger, they, their kings, their princes, their priests, and their prophets, and the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. 33And they have turned unto me the back, and not the face: though I taught them, rising up early and teaching them, yet they have not hearkened to receive instruction. 34But they set their abominations in the house, which is called by my name, to defile it. 35And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.


God says it is an abomination to offer their sons and daughters to idols, He says it never entered His mind.

Now, if we look at it as a sacrifice that Jesus decided that He would lay down His life to redeem that which was so beloved to God, how loving is that? As opposed to an anger God seeking punishment to appease His justice. John said God is love, Jesus said greater love has no man than this, that He lay down his life for a friend. Yes God is just, but He also is love. He says I will forgive their sins. Jesus offered Himself to God, in that He humbled Himself, came to earth and paved a way that would allow mankind to be reconciled to God.

threebigrocks
Nov 19th 2008, 04:07 PM
Absolutely correct Mike. :)
No penal substitution involved.

How is that? Penal substitution that Christ willingly laid down His life so that we could be forgiven of sin and have hope of eternal life. Sin keeps us from that.

How can we say there is no sacrafice? How does one explain the gospel without it?

threebigrocks
Nov 19th 2008, 04:11 PM
First, can you show me Scripture that says God requires payment for sins?

Second, a ransom is paid to the one who is holding someone in captivity. Did Jesus pay a ransom to free us from God, so that He could give us to God???

When a child is kidnapped, is the ransom paid to the father? Or is it paid to the kidnapper?

If the ransom was paid to God, who did He kidnap us from?

Just some things to think about.

When all you have known is the Satisfaction model of the atonement, other things seem odd. However as you spend time studying and thinking about these things you will begin to see that the Classic view of the atonement makes much more sense than the Satifaction or Penal model.

Goodness, Christ paid our ransom so that we would not be judged unworthy by the Father and sentenced to hell. The ransom was for our freedom from sin, that debt was paid through Christ to the Father. Our ransom from eternal condemnation was was paid by Christ.

Satan would love to think he's getting something from God. The only thing he gets is condemned. Satan doesn't hold our judgment in his hand, God does.

Butch5
Nov 19th 2008, 05:22 PM
Goodness, Christ paid our ransom so that we would not be judged unworthy by the Father and sentenced to hell. The ransom was for our freedom from sin, that debt was paid through Christ to the Father. Our ransom from eternal condemnation was was paid by Christ.

Satan would love to think he's getting something from God. The only thing he gets is condemned. Satan doesn't hold our judgment in his hand, God does.

So, are you going to ignore the Scriptures I posted? Scripture says we were delivered from the power of darkness.

Also please, show me Scripture that says God requires a payment for our sin. Paul said the wages of sin is death, Paul said all have sinned, well, we all die.

Teke
Nov 19th 2008, 05:25 PM
How is that? Penal substitution that Christ willingly laid down His life so that we could be forgiven of sin and have hope of eternal life. Sin keeps us from that.

I'll ask you some questions in return. If God is "penal", why didn't He just destroy man at the fall?

Do you believe Christ was a "substitute" for humanity, or that He actually embodied humanity in His full humanity?


How can we say there is no sacrafice? How does one explain the gospel without it?

I never said there was no sacrifice. Sacrifice in the simplest terms, means to give of yourself, of your free will, freely given, no strings attached. It does't mean to make an exchange in the sense that if you give something then that will make God give you something back.
Jesus made a free will offering of peace. ie. peace offering

This is how man is at peace with God by Jesus. He is the High Priest making peace (offering, sacrifice) with God on our behalf. Before Jesus, mankind could not make a perfect peace offering because of sin.

Since we are not perfect as He is, He sent His Son to do it for us. Which is why the Son came by the Incarnation, assuming our state of humanity to accomplish the task. It was always God's will, even before the fall. Even sin can't separate us from God.

markedward
Nov 19th 2008, 06:02 PM
Christ offered Himself to God in that, man messed everything up. Jesus offered to come and fix everything that man had messed up. Basically, He said, I'll go fix it. That is an offering to God.I'm just not following your line of thinking on how you interpret this to mean He was offered to Satan as a ransom.

The two verses say He was offered to God. They don't say "He was offered [to Satan so that we may be reconciled] to God". To God. If I offer a piece of cake to you, that doesn't mean I'm giving it over to someone else.

And again, I point out Hebrews 9 and 10, which deal heavily with the Old Covenant sacrifices, and how Christ was offered in the same way, but as a single, perfect sacrifice rather than multiple, imperfect sacrifices. Would you have us believe that the Old Covenant sacrifices were being made to Satan? I highly doubt it. And yet, Hebrews 9 and 10 tell us that Christ's sacrifice followed suit with these. And since the OC sacrifices were offered to God, why would anyone think that the NC sacrifice was offered to Satan?

Christ being offered as a sacrifice to free us from sin and Satan's influence doesn't mean the same thing as Christ being offered as a ransom to Satan. I admit I was reinterpreting "for us" as "in place of us". But you're reinterpreting "to God" as "to Satan to reconcile us to God".

Butch5
Nov 19th 2008, 07:34 PM
I'm just not following your line of thinking on how you interpret this to mean He was offered to Satan as a ransom.

The two verses say He was offered to God. They don't say "He was offered [to Satan so that we may be reconciled] to God". To God. If I offer a piece of cake to you, that doesn't mean I'm giving it over to someone else.

And again, I point out Hebrews 9 and 10, which deal heavily with the Old Covenant sacrifices, and how Christ was offered in the same way, but as a single, perfect sacrifice rather than multiple, imperfect sacrifices. Would you have us believe that the Old Covenant sacrifices were being made to Satan? I highly doubt it. And yet, Hebrews 9 and 10 tell us that Christ's sacrifice followed suit with these. And since the OC sacrifices were offered to God, why would anyone think that the NC sacrifice was offered to Satan?

Christ being offered as a sacrifice to free us from sin and Satan's influence doesn't mean the same thing as Christ being offered as a ransom to Satan. I admit I was reinterpreting "for us" as "in place of us". But you're reinterpreting "to God" as "to Satan to reconcile us to God".

Well, I don't know how to make it much clearer. Hebrews 9 and 10 make it clear that God did not like the OT sacrifices, they were a type. In OT sacrifices, innocent blood was shed for the guilty. Just as in the NT, Christ's innocent blood was shed for the guilty. OT sacrifices did not remove sins. Ezekiel and Jeremiah make it clear that God did not like it when Israel sacrificed their son and daughters to the gods. I can't see how He would do it Himself, when concerning Israel, He said it was an abomination, He said he never commanded it, and He said it never entered His mind.

Paul clearly says we were redeemed from the power of darkness, John said, Christ came to destroy the works of the devil, the writer of Hebrews says Christ took on flesh that He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is the devil. Where does Scripture say anywhere that we were redeemed from God?

All through Scripture when the new covenant is discussed it says God will forgive their sins, there is no mention of a payment to God. If Jesus died to pay the price for our sins, why do we die? If the payment for our sins is death and Jesus paid that, why do we die???

markedward
Nov 19th 2008, 08:09 PM
I do not feel that you have directly responded to the things I've brought up. I would like for you, if it is no trouble, to please respond to these directly.

1. Two verses explicitly state that Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice to God. Not to Satan. Yet you state that Christ offered Himself to Satan. So how can you interpret "to God" as "to Satan"?

2. Hebrews compares the OC sacrifices to the NC sacrifice. The OC sacrifices were the "type" (as you said) offered to God for the forgiveness of sins. The NC sacrifice is the "archtype"; it follows suit with the OC sacrifices. If Christ was offering Himself to Satan as a ransom, that would require interpreting the OC sacrifices as also having been offered to Satan. Why does Hebrews call Christ's sacrifice a perfect "version" (so to speak) of the OC sacrifices, if the OC sacrifices were offered to God yet the NC sacrifice was offered to Satan?


Where does Scripture say anywhere that we were redeemed from God?I did not say we were "redeemed from God". I provided Hosea 13:14 and 1 Corinthians 15:55-56, which when read together state that God was "ransoming" us from the Law, which is what condemns us in our sins.


If Jesus died to pay the price for our sins, why do we die? If the payment for our sins is death and Jesus paid that, why do we die???I already stated that I have "switched" from the "substitionary" view to a "sacrificial" view. Are you confusing the two as the same thing, or did you just not read what I said?


God did not like it when Israel sacrificed their son and daughters to the gods. I can't see how He would do it Himself, when concerning Israel, He said it was an abomination, He said he never commanded it, and He said it never entered His mind.This is flawed reasoning. You say the "substitutionary" and "sacrificial" views are wrong because they interpret it as God sending Jesus to die. But that's exactly what the "ransom" view says as well, that God sent Jesus to die. The only difference is that the "substitutionary" and "sacrificial" views interpret Christ being offered to God as a "substitution" or "sacrifice" (respectively), while the "ransom" view interprets Christ as being offered to Satan. The "ransom" view says God send Christ to die, so you can't say the other two views are wrong because they claim God sent Christ to die.


Paul clearly says we were redeemed from the power of darkness,And Paul said that the "power of death" is found in the Law. We were redeemed from our condemnation under the Law.


John said, Christ came to destroy the works of the devil,Yet, how does "destroy the works of the devil" mean the same thing as "offer Himself as a ransom to the devil"?


the writer of Hebrews says Christ took on flesh that He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is the devil.And, again, how does "destroying" Satan equate to "offering Himself" to Satan?

holyrokker
Nov 20th 2008, 01:49 AM
Well, holyrokker, I hope you found your answers somewhere in all this........
LOL - Somewhere, I'm sure.

Butch5
Nov 21st 2008, 01:09 AM
Hi Markedward,

I will respond to, your post I'm busy at the moment and I want to try and explain it better. So I bumped this thread.

Walstib
Nov 21st 2008, 01:23 AM
They were fooled, kind of like when someone offers candy to child and grabs them. The child goes willingly up to the car and then is snatched. Likewise, Adam and Eve were tricked into believing Satan. He said "has God said"? He got them to question God, then He convinced them to eat. They were duped. Remember there was no evil up to this point, so they would not have had reason to be cautious.

I was considering this today. As I understand it was Eve who was beguiled but Adam knew what he was doing.

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. (1Ti 2:14 KJV)

Adam willfully sinned and this was the fall, he had the authority. Eve had already eaten before the fall.

Some things to consider.
Joe

Butch5
Nov 21st 2008, 02:56 AM
I was considering this today. As I understand it was Eve who was beguiled but Adam knew what he was doing.

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. (1Ti 2:14 KJV)

Adam willfully sinned and this was the fall, he had the authority. Eve had already eaten before the fall.

Some things to consider.
Joe

Yes, but remember Eve ate first and she gave to Adam, so he followed her lead. He is the head, he neglected his authority.