To Whom Was the Ransom Paid?

The ransom theory (i.e. ransom to Satan) of the atonement goes back to many of the church fathers.

 

I cant imagine anyone thinking anything at all would be paid to Satan, as Christ died to show mastery over evil and death itself by His resurrection!! The ransom was paid to God to satisfy His justice and wrath against sin. Blood atonement as price for sin. Christ subjected Himself to this death in our behalf!

God cannot be in the presence of sin.
Christ died to atone for my sins, allowing me now to live eternally in the very presence of God, clothed in the righteousness of Christ!

The doctrine of imputation is so clearly documented in 2 Cor 5 : 21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him!!

That is our sin placed in Christ's account.
His righteousness placed in my account!

Also: Isaiah 61 : 10 I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, My sould shall be joyful in my God; For He has clothed me with the garments of salvation, He has covered me with the robe of righteousness!!

Soli deo gloria!!

 

AMEN AND AMEN !!!:flower:

 

Psalms 49:7
7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

I don't think ransom implies that we are being held hostage, although we were certainly in bondage. The Webster's 1828 had this definition for ransom,
3. In law, a sum paid for the pardon of some great offense and the discharge of the offender; or a fine paid in lieu of corporal punishment.
I think this would be the proper sense of the word.

 

As weird as it sounds to us today the idea that the atonement was a ransom paid to Satan was a view held among many ancient Christians for quite a few years (even Augustine kind of believed this, but it's hard to pin his views of the atonement down). There was also the subjective view of the atonement that was popular particular among the Eastern Fathers (which has led to the ongoing belief in theosis among the Greek Orthodox Church today).

Really, the beginning of the paradigm for the atonement that we all are familiar with today began with Anselm and was refined by Calvin. The biggest difference between them was that Anselm believed that the atonement had to happen (cf. Cur Deus Homo), while Calvin believed that it was God's choice and He did it because of grace.

For more, like the broken record I am, consult some good systematic theologies on the issue or even some decent historical works. You know one recent festschrift (I believe in honor of Roger Nicole) has come out called "The Glory of the Atonement," which is filled with some great essays on various theological issues with the atonement. I highly recommend it.

BJ

 

Origen was the 1st to come up with this ransom to Satan.

There has been a ton of bad views given..and just not on this BB.

Irenaeus had the "recapitulation theory"..something about Christ reversed the couse of human life by repeating in Himself stages and experiences..including those in the sinner.

The Commercial Theory of Anselm...Christ death restored Gods honor..or something like that.

Moral influence theory...by Abelard...this is close to the view held by Calvinist one one end.....but it did not address substitutionary, propitiatory or ransom of Christ Death

Thomas Aquinas..said atonement was not necessary and that God could have redeemed man without it.

The Example Theory....by Socinus.
Said Christ did not bear all the sins of anyone...because He would have to die as many times as there were elect..so it was more a example. This base view is where most non-calvinist take there view. I mean..the example part..not the many deaths part.

Acceptilation theory...Scotus
close to Aquinas..but that is all i can remember

Governmental view...close to Example view...but it was done in hate of sin..not in payment.

there are others too..

 

Here is my problem with this theory.

We were in the bondage of sin and not satan. Sin is transgression against GOD and is not necessarily in fellowship with satan. I believe satan get's credit for a lot more than he really does.

Because sin is transgression against GOD, the debt was with GOD the father.

 

Nice post buick

 

Careful with that double amenen, you'll have us a new thread :laugh: :wavey:

 

? I never heard of this view. Can you give more details..or a link or something?

 

double post

 

I don't get it. This site has some guy singing and says nothing about atonement...or nothing about the Bible that I can tell. Just some poor singing.

Is this another joke of yours?

 

Interesting article on atonement here by Mark Dever:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/005/9.29.html

 

i see

To bad I always use quotes. :smilewinkgrin:

Until your next game...peace