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

[DaveXR650]

That is where I am seeking to understand exactly how we move from the idea that God forgives sins to the idea God cannot forgive sins (that God forgives sinners upon receipt of payment for the sin). And how do we move from the idea Christ ransomed us from the "dominion of darkness" to the idea that Christ ransomed us from the Father?

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.

 

[unprofitable]

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

It isn't that I do not understand the position and I apologize if my posts appeared otherwise. I had intended to (and thought I had) make it clear that I understand the issue.

I am asking how we get from Scripture (we are ransomed from the "dominion of darkness"/ the "powers of this world", the "Evil One") to we are ransomed from the Father.

I get what is said, but I don't see a clear path to the conclusion.

 

[unprofitable]

Mine are not objections, just a few observations.

I agree that there was a price for our redemption. We were purchased by the blood of Christ.

And I agree that Christ's suffering was caused by the wicked, but that this was the predetermined plan of God.

What I do not understand is how you go from that to Christ ransoming us from the Father (if I understand you correctly) rather than from the powers of darkness.

The problem is still there.

Colossians 2:13–17. When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him. Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day- things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

The certificate of death is the Law. And here I do agree that we can view this as a certificate of sin.

But the context of the discussion is viewing the ransom of man from the "dominion of darkness" as a ransom from the Father in the form of a "sin debt" being paid.

That is where the argument falls apart. Scripture speaks of transgressions, sins (we can use "sin debt") being forgiven - the certificate canceled. NOT Christ as paying a "sin debt" instead of us.

That is where I am seeking to understand exactly how we move from the idea that God forgives sins to the idea God cannot forgive sins (that God forgives sinners upon receipt of payment for the sin). And how do we move from the idea Christ ransomed us from the "dominion of darkness" to the idea that Christ ransomed us from the Father?

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

Why do you believe this?

There is no FROM THE FATHER in my posts unless I overlooked something in spell checker.

You said we had a "sin debt" and a payment made in our stead.

To whom do you believe this payment was made?

 

[DaveXR650]

I am asking how we get from Scripture (we are ransomed from the "dominion of darkness"/ the "powers of this world", the "Evil One") to we are ransomed from the Father.

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.

 

[unprofitable]

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

I have never been Lutheran, so I'll also refrain from equating his view here.

I get the terminology used. And if you had asked me a couple of decades ago I would have answered that Christ paid our "sin debt" instead of us in order to satisfy that debt. I would have also pointed out that divine justice necessitates a payment for sins.

To be fair that is because of my tradition. It is what I had been brought up believing. I could read it in Scripture, but at the same time I cannot adequately say how it is derived from Scripturr.

That is why I ask the questions I ask.

I read in the Bible that we were ransomed from the dominion of darkness, from evil. But I was taught this ransom was a payment that had to be rendered as an appeasement to God (opposite from what is actually in the Bible).

It seems to me that Scripture tells us Christ's death was a ransom from the powers of evil (literally from sin and death) and that this places us "in Christ" where we will escape the wrath to come at Judgment when those powers that held us captive are cast into the Lake of Fire.

So just by reading the Bible it appears that Christ's death liberated us from evil and it is ny His life that we escape the wrath to come.

Anyway, I do not see anywhere that Christ's death is a payment made to satisfy a sin debt.

 

[unprofitable]

Why do you believe this?

You said we had a "sin debt" and a payment made in our stead.

To whom do you believe this payment was made?

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

If I got this right - the Son ransomed us from the Father (this sin debt was paid to the Father) and once the debt was paid in full the Father "forgave" the debt?

 

[unprofitable]

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.

 

[DaveXR650]

"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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

1Jn 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

So the verse still says that He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world or do you not understand the sentence?

If God through Christ is propitiiated in respect of every single person in the world, then there can be no condemnation for anyone in the whole world. So you need to ak yourself what 'world' (kosmos) means in this particular context. Have a think about it.

Metonymically, the world meaning the inhabitants of the earth, men, mankind (Mat_5:14; Mat_13:38; Joh_1:29; Joh_3:16; Rom_3:6, Rom_3:19; 1Co_4:13; 2Co_5:19; Heb_11:7; 2Pe_2:5; 1Jn_2:2).
{The Complete Word Study Dictionary Spiros Zodhiates}

The prima facie reading of this text seems unequivocal:
Jesus is the propitiation G2434 for the sins of believers, many of whom John is addressing (“for our sins”); and furthermore, Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of “the whole world,” meaning unbelievers to whom John is not directly writing to.
Succinctly put, it does not follow that John is saying that only some Jews and only some Gentiles are atoned for. The atoning sacrifice of Jesus has a universal scope
Xref 1Jn_4:14; 1Jn_4:10; 1Pe_2:24; Joh_1:29; Joh_12:32; Rom_3:25-26
If the limited atonement advocate is to defend his position, the burden of proof is on him to provide evidence as to why this one example in 1Jn_2:2 is the sole exception of John’s undeviating meaning of world.

I'll reply in more detail later on, but in view of John's 'undeviating meaning of world,' would you like to comment on 1 John 2:15-17?

Those verses are self explanatory don't you think. Those that have trusted in God for their salvation are not to be caught up in the lusts of the flesh.

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!

 

[JonC]

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.

I did read that you believed the Son paid the sin debt to the Father. By definition this means the ransom was from the Father.

Anyway, what passage are you referencing about the Father sending the Son because the Father could not die?

 

[JonC]

"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.

This is a logical answer. It addresses both the ransom of men from evil and ties God into receiving the payment.

It is also partially biblical (God using Satan for His purposes).

That said, it assumes that the ransom was a payment made to somebody (here, God). That is not biblical, per se (not actually in God's Word), but I see how you got there.

Thanks for a reasoned response.

 

[robycop3]

...done already:

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said unto them, Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of repentance:
9 and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
10 And even now the axe lieth at the root of the trees: every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Mt 3

21 for then shall be great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, nor ever shall be.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished. Mt 24

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.

 

[Guido]

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

Depends on what you mean.

Which passage are you looking at?

 

[Silverhair]

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!

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.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning

This thread will be closed no sooner than 1030 pm EST /730 pm PST