@Deputy Dog:
I guess that's the difference between us, I believe that faith is a gift from God to his children.
You are free to believe whatever it is you want to believe, but faith is not a gift from God to anyone. "The gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord," who is our Redeemer. (Romans 6:23) You want to believe faith to be a gift from God, that's fine, but the good news doesn't teach such an idea.
@Fernando:
God wanted his children back without resorting to deception as our stepfather had. Since our stepfather hated Jesus, he demanded his life as a ransom. Our heavenly father and our older brother Jesus determined that they would gladly pay this ransom due to their immense love for humans (John 3:16; 1 Cor 1:30; Eph 1:7; Col 1:14; Heb 9:15).
None of these scriptures you cite here -- John 3:16, 1 Corinthians 1:30, Ephesians 1:7, Colossians 1:14 or Hebrews 9:15 -- does one learn that God used Jesus' death to satisfy any debt owed to Satan by God as a ransom for mankind's sins. Mankind had no sins apart from those it inherited from Adam, since only Adam and Eve were alive when the sentence of death was imposed upon them for their transgression of God's law, their sin of disobedience, so only Adam owed a debt to God. Adam was a son of God, but we were never God's children; being Adam's offspring, we were all born estranged from God. IOW, we were all fatherless children in need of a father.
This (partly speculative) perspective finds support where the Bible often and clearly distinguishes between the "children of God" and the "children of the devil".
These designations of the "children of God" and the "children of the devil" are understood spiritually, and have nothing at all to do with the ransom.
Most notably Jesus who was against religion and the teaching of religion (proselytising Matt 23:15), denounced religious leaders as offspring of vipers, and from their father the devil.
So you believe Jesus was "against religion," against ... the teaching of religion" and "against "proselytizing"? Really? While it is true that Jesus did denounce those first-century religious leaders whose teaching made the word of God invalid since their teaching accorded with the traditions of men and not with God's word, his preaching about the good news of the kingdom and about God's righteousness -- religion based on truth (John 4:24) -- and making disciples was from God and not from the devil. (Matthew 15:9)
Your citing Matthew 23:15 regarding the proselytization work of the religious leaders whose form of worship went counter to God's word makes the point that these religious leaders had been making proselytes of Gentiles, already subjects of Gehenna disciples as much as the religious leaders were, and making them twice as guilty before God by what they had been teaching them.
It is near impossible to find a JW that can list more than 1 of the 30-odd key ingredients or components of the "good news".
It is near impossible to find a JW that can explain the "good news" according to Paul, whereas more than half the Bible's references to the "good news" are by Paul!
As you say, it is "near impossible," but it is not an impossibility to find Jehovah's Witnesses that can adequately explain the good news of the kingdom that Jesus and his disciples, including Paul, taught. I don't get your point about these so-called "30-odd key ... components" of the good news.
When one pursues a deeper understanding of spiritual bondage/captivity/custody/possession/control (aka a key ingredient of religion) - versus - spiritual liberation/deliverance (aka a key ingredient of the "good news"), matters become a lot clearer.
What matters" become a lot clearer? What "deeper understanding" do you mean? Mankind has been in literal bondage since the beginning when Adam sold his yet-unborn offspring into sin and certain death, and spiritual liberation and/or deliverance doesn't have a thing to do with our enslavement to sin and death, to our having been in bondage to sin and death.
This spiritual liberation to which you refer has to do with mankind's gaining a knowledge of God, which Jehovah's Witnesses do in preaching a release to those held captive to religious falsehoods, recovery of sight to those spiritually blind to the truth, and to inform "crushed ones" about the release made possible by their acceptance of good news concerning the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ. (Luke 4:18)
Also understanding enmity (aka a key ingredient of religion) - versus - reconciliation/atonement (aka a key ingredient of the "good news") is also a vital key to the puzzle.
"Enmity"? In what way do you see hostility as having a thing to do with the reconciliation of mankind with God through the atonement sacrifice of Jesus Christ? In what way is such "a vital key"? I don't follow you here.
It is a bit like hunting for lost, hidden or missing puzzle pieces of a treasure map that leads to a priceless treasure.
Are you saying that becoming reconciled with God and/or the atonement sacrifice of Christ are a bit like hunting for lost puzzle pieces? What does this mean exactly?
Oddly enough even this most profound and fairly hard to understand part of the "good news" is "reasonably" well described in the Watchtower. Indeed all the full and true "good news" can be found (albeit fragmented) in the JW publications, just not in their hearts, and not on their lips.
The good news is found in the Bible, and once explained, it isn't hard to understand. Watchtower publications are merely an adjunct to understanding the Bible, Bible study aids, but the good news is found only in the Bible and nowhere else.
Find and highlight the words "custody" (15X) and "bondage" (18X) in w52 7/15 pp. 437-445. Admittedly our family had to reread this very deep article many times, and do a lot of prayerful research, until the penny finally dropped, and we saw the stunning picture. There are many easier ingredients of the "good news" that one may choose to study first as stepping stones to these more arcane ingredients and the big picture.
This cited Watchtower article, "Shadows Out of the Past," to which you refer speaks to how all Jehovah's Witnesses are essentially shepherds of lost sheep to whom we might speak in our ministry, who serve to help others enjoy the relative freedom that Christians enjoy upon their hearing and affirmatively acting upon the good news that we preach as to the release provided by Jehovah God through faith in Jesus Christ. I don't regard this article as "very deep," and it's not about the good news, per se, but it is an easy read and good fodder for a Bible-based discussion.
We did also learn that the only thing the Watchtower Society fears more than their own publications, is someone who knows and can use their publications better than them. Once we walked out and formally denounced them as apostates, it was possible to research and explore the "good news" freely and progress much faster.
In what way do you mean that those Jehovah's Witnesses that staff the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society fear the publications that we produce and distribute to others? In what way would an apostate benefit from using the publications produced by Jehovah's Witnesses if they denounced their faith and their association with Jehovah's Witnesses? Why would someone need to leave the ranks of Jehovah's Witnesses to research what things the Bible teaches about the good news of the kingdom of God? This statement of yours makes no sense to me.
We rejoice at finally being free of the spiritually blind, confused, inebriated, and insane Watchtower and their mindless apostate minions.
Ok, and yet you only just quoted from a 1952 Watchtower article, which article contains many of the things that Jehovah's Witnesses continue to believe and teach, so why would you be here quoting from the Watchtower, and at the same time conclude that Jehovah's Witnesses are "spiritually blind, confused, drink and insane, or that we enjoy the companionship of "mindless apostate minions"? I don't understand your reasoning here.
As Isaiah 61:1 explains the power and purpose of the "good news": "The spirit of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah is upon me [Jesus], for the reason that Jehovah has anointed me [Jesus] to tell [the] good news to the meek ones [sheep or wheat]. He has sent me [Jesus] to bind up the brokenhearted [spiritually deprived and unregenerated], to proclaim [spiritual] liberty to those taken [spiritually] captive [by religion/ists] and the wide opening [of the spiritual eyes] even to the [spiritual] prisoners [of religion/ists]".
PM me if you can benefit from a comprehensive list of suggested search strings in the Watchtower library, to help your research.
What does any of this have to do with this thread, this topic about the ransom, @Fernando?
@godrulz:
His death was not a literal payment, so universalism is not true.
What's the connection with this opinion of yours about Jesus' death not being the same as someone making a literal payment? What I have in mind are those rewards paid in exchange for the dead bodies of outlaws advertised on "Wanted" posters on whose heads the government had placed bounties. A literal payment made for the dead body of Public Enemy #Whatever. What I have in mind also are those pardons granted to persons convicted at law of criminal offenses on the say-so of a governor to escape either death or incarceration altogether. A de facto political payment made on behalf of someone held in detention whose freedom had been taken away.
What do either of these payments have to do with universalism? Not a thing. If Jesus' death didn't constitute a real payment to God that would aptly satisfy the debt that neither Adam nor any of his children could ever satisfy on their own, then Jesus' death was meaningless and mankind will remain a debtors drowning in its indebtedness to God for its sins forever.
He intended it for all and it is efficacious for all who believe (you confuse the grounds and conditions of salvation Jn. 3:16 vs Jn. 3:36; I Jn. 5:11-13).
God intended the ransom to serve as payment for all those of mankind that believes on, accepts and acknowledges, the ransom paid on their behalf by the Lord Jesus Christ, which is a qualified "all" on this one condition, namely, faith in that for which Jesus' name stands, for it is only by means of Jesus' death, whose life he gave as a ransom on behalf of the world, that one can be saved. You cited John 3:16 and 1 John 5:13, but both John 3:18 and John 3:36 make clear that apart from faith, one is "already condemned." Jesus is a ransom, and "many" will benefit from it, but not "all" will. (Matthew 20:28)
We are saved by grace alone through faith. Those who reject Christ do not receive His free gift.
We are saved by God's grace, that is to say, by God's provision of the ransom, which is God's free gift, not a gift that we receive from Jesus, let we forget that God gave his son as a ransom to us provided we are actually exercising faith in that ransom since those that choose not to exercise faith are condemned and will not be saved by it. It's important to keep in mind that the ransom wasn't Jesus' own idea, but is a provision of his father's own doing It was not a decision that originated with Jesus, but it was Jehovah God that loved the world so much that he sent his Son to die "as a propitiatory sacrifice" for the sins of the world. (Romans 5:8; 1 John 4:10)
Our faith does not save us, but it allows a subjective appropriation of His objective provision....
This is not true. Let's be clear here: We are saved by our faith in Jesus' ransom, but faith alone, merely claiming to have faith in Jesus, won't save anyone, for godly works must accompany faith. (James 2:14) To exercise faith in Jesus' name means to demonstrate that faith through obedience to God's word, to "publicly declare that 'word in your own mouth' that Jesus is Lord," our Redeemer, which our obediently doing so constitutes godly works of faith. (Romans 10:9)
Salvation is relational, free, reciprocal loving, not caused/coerced. His death saves both of us, but how do you explain why some are not saved (double predestination is odious, even to Calvin who pinched his nose and agreed with it anyway due to a flawed view of sovereignty/free will).
John Calvin believe in fatalism, teaching predestination, as did Augustine, as if it were a legitimate Bible doctrine. How exactly does this belief held by Calvinists fit into this thread about the ransom? The ransom is a free gift, but salvation isn't free, for the privilege of receiving this free gift, which leads to salvation comes with conditions. No one at all is predestined for salvation. Jesus clearly stated: "He that believes and is baptized will be saved." (Mark 16:16) Believing in the ransom, in Jesus' name, is one condition, but if one is not baptized, which is a condition for salvation, he will be condemned and will not be saved, period.
@djeggnog
