Featured The Vain Fool, Child of Pride, Son of Folly Who Replies Against God's Sovereignty

I know enough from the previous threads that talked about the atonement that you are well aware of what you are trying to understand. I will not be able to help but for anyone else viewing this thread the fact is the idea that Christ paid a price or a ransom to the Father is commonly taught and as a way to help us in our understanding it is useful I think. I don't think is is comprehensive and penal substitutionary atonement would be way to really understand the atonement.

 

JonC,

You are making an argument that you took from my post that was not what I said. If I led you to believe that was what I was saying because of my lack of clarity, I apologize. I will say that thought never entered by mind.

I am not sure if you did not read my post 111 or just forgot to expand for a full answer. I made a mistake on the quote function in post 111. If you hit expand and read you will see my statement that I do not believe we were ransomed FROM God but that we were ransomed FOR or BY the will of God.

 

If it were the plan of the Father to simply say "I forgive you", (which he could righteously do) then there would not be a need for Christ to be crucified. In Christ being crucified, we are ransomed FOR the Father. There is no FROM THE FATHER in my posts unless I overlooked something in spell checker. If it is and I did not catch it, I apologize for the confusion.

 

According to Luther there is a "greatness and terror in the wrath of God against sin in that it could be appeased and a ransom effected in no other way than through the sacrifice of the Son of God." So in that sense this payment is made to God who because of his nature and hatred of sin would not simply forgive sins without a satisfaction of his justice. I don't know enough honestly to evaluate this but I'm just saying the terminology is used - often enough.

 

JonC,

The sin debt is used in the context of our being under captivity as servants of unrighteousness to Satan under the law of sin and death. We had no ability to redeem or restore ourselves nor our brethren. Christ had to come and proclaim the oracles of God or their true original meaning of the Law. He had to suffered and died that the New Covenant might be brought in where we could clearly see the Father through the Son. Christ was the only one who could fulfill and take the old covenant out of the way. He declared, I am the way. The priests had perverted the demands and meaning of the Law under which we, in a lost state, were unable to see or hear how it pointed to Christ. We were held in death, as you said a death certificate, being under a corrupted system. Christ was the only one who could die and not see corruption. In this context he paid the price demanded by the Law because of the deception for the people by the power of Satan. The Law was righteous, but was perverted by Satan. 1 John 3:8 says ...For this purpose the son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works (image) of the Devil. The sin debt was paid in that now one was come that could not be held by death and see corruption. He was the perfect sacrifice that restored access to the Father by the truth that was in him. In that sense then, the sin debt being paid by Christ is the overcoming of Satan, who perverted the Law, through his life death and resurrection.

 

The atonement was made with the Father through the sacrifice of the Son. That requirement being met/paid now freed the captives from the law of sin and death. Satan could no longer hold those in Christ under a false doctrinal system, since the express image of the Father had been declared/manifested. The sin debt was paid by the son to the Father, in his being a perfect sacrifice to take away sin, so that the sons of God might be made holy, and kept in fellowship.

 

NO, You did not get it right. I find it hard to believe that you read any of my replies wherein I emphatically said that there is NO ransoming FROM the Father but there is a ransoming FOR the Father. The Father could not die so he sent his Son to redeem his people.

 

"Sinners are in bondage to Satan. But they are only in bondage because God has allowed them to be. The bondage mankind finds itself in is part of the punishment for sin. Payment is owed to God, not the Devil. The Bible does view the atonement as a ransom paid (see Mark 10:45). But it is a ransom paid to God the Father." May 2004, The Ransom Theory. From the Ligonier.org website.

 

1 John 2:15-17. 'Do not love the world or the things of the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world - the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, the pride of life - is not of the father, but is of the world.......... '
Now, in the light of these verses, how can you say that God is propitiated to the world or that 'world' means every single inhabitant of the world, whom we are to love ((Matthew 5:43-45) or that 1 John 2:2 is the "undeviating meaning of 'world.'"?

I have posted before that kosmos has a variety meanings. To determine the meaning, I refer you to your own saying - Context, context, context!

 

Aint been any worldwide trib yet. If it'd already occurred, Jesus woulda already returned.

Matt. 24:29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

 

Clearly, the scriptures teach that Christ's death on the cross was to make a payment for sins, the book of Hebrews leaving us no doubt.

 

I agree that we have to look at context which it seems you have ignored again. The context is the letter or is that something that you missed. How do you miss that it is those that have trusted that are being admonished to take care. You have still not provided anything that would support your view. If you want to disagree with the text then it upon you to prove from the text that this refers to your calvinist elect/chosen. Neither these verses or the whole letter support your view.

Martin you are grasping at straws.