Q for all Christians (not just JW) about the ransom.

by Anony Mous 85 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Anony Mous
    Anony Mous

    So this is the basic logical flaw in Christianity I believe. A brother identified it from the stage for me in a talk. We all agree (as Christians and JW's) that the ransom was necessary because Adam lost his perfection and everlasting life.

    This is a paraphrase from the talk:

    So a ransom is usually when somebody kidnaps your family member (in this case your sinless everlasting life) and then you have to pay it back (say a million dollars).

    However as humans we cannot pay it back since we are imperfect. Bulls and goats as Paul said could not fulfill this, only Jesus could since he was perfect. So what does God do in his eternal wisdom is after demanding bulls and goats for thousands of years that he knew cannot provide the ransom provide the ransom (Jesus) to be paid back to him (oh, so very loving of him).

    So this is the point where you have to pay for your family member but you have no money (the million dollars) and nobody is able to provide you the money (you're broke and have no credit and you won't live long or good enough anyway).

    So what does God do, he provides the ransom for you. The kidnapper gives you the million dollars so you (humanity) can give him back the million dollars to fulfill the ransom.

    This makes no sense, why give somebody else grief for thousands of years if you're going to give yourself the money anyway (this is what the brother said).

    This is a loving arrangement though from God (huh??? I hooked off right there)

    My thoughts: Why go through all the trouble to kidnap somebodies everlasting life and demand a ransom that cannot be paid by the victims of your kidnapper just so you can give your victims grief and pay yourself back thousands of years later without any real benefit to anyone.

    Now you could argue that it was Satan that took our everlasting life but the ransom does not get paid to Satan, the ransom gets paid back to God. God took our everlasting life on a paradise earth as a ransom and then he pays himself back thousands of years later, there are no other parties included. IMHO God is an asshole or Dr. Evil - I want 1 billion, gagillion, fafillion, shabolubalu million illion yillion... yen.

  • godrulz
    godrulz

    Actually, the WT concept of ransom is NOT Christianity's biblical concept at all. 'Christendom' does not teach the same view as the WT. The 'atonement' is not a literal payment. Ransom is a metaphor conveying spiritual truth, not a wooden literalism. The death of Christ on the cross (not stake) is a substitute for the penalty of sin. Some Christians do believe in Anselmian literal payment or commercial transaction theory, but this would logically lead to universalism. There are a variety of Christian views (we have unity, not uniformity; all Christians do not share the same theoretical understanding, but we all affirm the need to trust Christ and His sacrifice). I am in a minority in my circles and some consider my view promoted by revivalist/lawyer Charles G. Finney and others to be heretical. I believe it is closer to the truth (with Christus Victor model having some merit also). It deals with public vs retributive justice and God as responsible Moral Governor of the universe. Albert Barnes (wrote commentaries, etc.) writes about it in 'The Atonement'. JWs have simplistic answers, but fail to appreciate the depth of scholarship and issues surrounding many doctrinal views. WT appeals to uneducated people or those who do not know the Bible and does thinking for people. They fail to realize how shallow and problematic their views are.

  • Anony Mous
    Anony Mous

    I have read a lot of different views and they all boil down to the same thing: God did both give and receive the medium for sacrifice (Jesus) but believing that is not right, God did it out of love and you should just accept it.

    The question remains: Why is God credited with being both the giver and receiver of the atonement sacrifice, it doesn't make sense to give to yourself while letting others suffer at your hands. Another question that flows from it: Why was the atonement necessary? Or was the atonement paid to somebody else (which would make more sense) but then to whom.

    Our parents sinned and as their punishment they died thus completing their punishment. However we are being punished for their error as well which we can't change thus the punisher provided a symbolic receiver of the penalty but chose not to receive it right then and there but wait a little over 2000 years and let countless others suffer?

    If the above makes sense to you, please explain it to me. For me it's easier to believe that this is all hogwash unless somebody can explain the reasoning behind it. It would be much more acceptable if this God-person was a duality of both Good and Evil and the Good paid the Evil.

  • cofty
    cofty

    The key to the christian gospel is vicarious punishment. God is very very angry with everybody because the naked lady ate the fruit and is going to smite us all. Jesus volunteered to be pummelled in our place and god's wrath was placated by the sight of Jesus' bloody body on the cross.

    =

  • cofty
    cofty

    I wrote this article on the subject many years ago. The research is still valid but perhaps somebody should tell Doug Harris that the author is an atheist now?

  • godrulz
    godrulz

    Cofty: your view is a straw man view of the real issues involved. You are talking about pagan chicken blood appeasement, etc. The Moral Government view rightly recognizes the issues are governmental, not personal, public vs retributive justice. God is full of grace and mercy, but has a moral law to uphold. Freely extending mercy and forgiveness (something He desires to do in love without being appeased to be more favorable to forgive) is not wise to the impenitent and his moral gov't without certain conditions to deal with justice issues. Everyone wants justice and wonders why God does not do something. When God does something about evil, everyone complains He is not loving/merciful. Justice and mercy kiss at the cross and the issues are satisfied with the substitutionary sacrifice. They are not personal to make an angry God less angry, etc. This demonstrates a lack of understanding and is unfair to the great heart and mind of God.

    anony: you are on the wrong track to turn a limited metaphor of payment into a wooden literalism. Literal payment is a wrong view of atonement.

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    Here are some views:

    http://www.gotquestions.org/atonement-theories.html

    Answer: Throughout church history, several different views of the atonement, some true and some false, have been put forth by different individuals or denominations. One of the reasons for the various views is that both the Old and New Testaments reveal many truths about Christ’s atonement, making it hard, if not impossible, to find any single “theory” that fully encapsulates or explains the richness of the atonement. What we discover as we study the Scriptures is a rich and multifaceted picture of the atonement as the Bible puts forth many interrelated truths concerning the redemption that Christ has accomplished. Another contributing factor to the many different theories of the atonement is that much of what we can learn about the atonement needs to be understood from the experience and perspective of God’s people under the Old Covenant sacrificial system.

    The atonement of Christ, its purpose and what it accomplished, is such a rich subject that volumes have been written about it. This article will simply provide a brief overview of many of the theories that have been put forward at one time or another. In looking at the different views of the atonement, we must remember that any view that does not recognize the sinfulness of man or the substitutionary nature of the atonement is deficient at best and heretical at worst.

    Ransom to Satan: This view sees the atonement of Christ as a ransom paid to Satan to purchase man’s freedom and release him from being enslaved to Satan. It is based on a belief that man’s spiritual condition is bondage to Satan and that the meaning of Christ’s death was to secure God’s victory over Satan. This theory has little, if any, scriptural support and has had few supporters throughout church history. It is unbiblical in that it sees Satan, rather than God, as the one who required that a payment be made for sin. Thus, it completely ignores the demands of God’s justice as seen throughout Scripture. It also has a higher view of Satan than it should and views him as having more power than he really does. There is no scriptural support for the idea that sinners owe anything to Satan, but throughout Scripture we see that God is the One who requires a payment for sin.

    Recapitulation Theory: This theory states that the atonement of Christ has reversed the course of mankind from disobedience to obedience. It believes that Christ’s life recapitulated all the stages of human life and in doing so reversed the course of disobedience initiated by Adam. This theory cannot be supported scripturally.

    Dramatic Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as securing the victory in a divine conflict between good and evil and winning man’s release from bondage to Satan. The meaning of Christ’s death was to ensure God’s victory over Satan and to provide a way to redeem the world out of its bondage to evil.

    Mystical Theory: The mystical theory sees the atonement of Christ as a triumph over His own sinful nature through the power of the Holy Spirit. Those who hold this view believe that knowledge of this will mystically influence man and awake his “god-consciousness.” They also believe that man’s spiritual condition is not the result of sin but simply a lack of “god-consciousness.” Clearly, this is unbiblical. To believe this, one must believe that Christ had a sin nature, while Scripture is clear that Jesus was the perfect God-man, sinless in every aspect of His nature ( Hebrews 4:15 ).

    Moral Influence Theory: This is the belief that the atonement of Christ is a demonstration of God’s love which causes man’s heart to soften and repent. Those who hold this view believe that man is spiritually sick and in need of help and that man is moved to accept God’s forgiveness by seeing God’s love for man. They believe that the purpose and meaning of Christ’s death was to demonstrate God’s love toward man. While it is true that Christ’s atonement is the ultimate example of the love of God, this view is unbiblical because it denies the true spiritual condition of man—dead in transgressions and sins ( Ephesians 2:1 )—and denies that God actually requires a payment for sin. This view of Christ’s atonement leaves mankind without a true sacrifice or payment for sin.

    Example Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as simply providing an example of faith and obedience to inspire man to be obedient to God. Those who hold this view believe that man is spiritually alive and that Christ’s life and atonement were simply an example of true faith and obedience and should serve as inspiration to men to live a similar life of faith and obedience. This and the moral influence theory are similar in that they both deny that God’s justice actually requires payment for sin and that Christ’s death on the cross was that payment. The main difference between the moral influence theory and the example theory is that the moral influence theory says that Christ’s death teaches us how much God loves us and the example theory says that Christ’s death teaches how to live. Of course, it is true that Christ is an example for us to follow, even in His death, but the example theory fails to recognize man’s true spiritual condition and that God’s justice requires payment for sin which man is not capable of paying.

    Commercial Theory: The commercial theory views the atonement of Christ as bringing infinite honor to God. This resulted in God giving Christ a reward which He did not need, and Christ passed that reward on to man. Those who hold this view believe that man’s spiritual condition is that of dishonoring God and so Christ’s death, which brought infinite honor to God, can be applied to sinners for salvation. This theory, like many of the others, denies the true spiritual state of unregenerate sinners and their need of a completely new nature, available only in Christ ( 2 Corinthians 5:17 ).

    Governmental Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as demonstrating God’s high regard for His law and His attitude toward sin. It is through Christ’s death that God has a reason to forgive the sins of those who repent and accept Christ’s substitutionary death. Those who hold this view believe that man’s spiritual condition is as one who has violated God’s moral law and that the meaning of Christ’s death was to be a substitute for the penalty of sin. Because Christ paid the penalty for sin, it is possible for God to legally forgive those who accept Christ as their substitute. This view falls short in that it does not teach that Christ actually paid the penalty of the actual sins of any people, but instead His suffering simply showed mankind that God’s laws were broken and that some penalty was paid.

    Penal Substitution Theory: This theory sees the atonement of Christ as being a vicarious, substitutionary sacrifice that satisfied the demands of God’s justice upon sin. With His sacrifice, Christ paid the penalty of man’s sin, bringing forgiveness, imputing righteousness, and reconciling man to God. Those who hold this view believe that every aspect of man—his mind, will, and emotions—have been corrupted by sin and that man is totally depraved and spiritually dead. This view holds that Christ’s death paid the penalty for sin and that through faith man can accept Christ’s substitution as payment for sin. This view of the atonement aligns most accurately with Scripture in its view of sin, the nature of man, and the results of the death of Christ on the cross.

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    And here is another one:

    Sin & Theodicy


    by:

    Frederica Mathewes-Green

    Often in conversations with Christians of other traditions I find myself explaining the Orthodox view of sin. For most Western Christians, sin is a matter of doing bad things, which create a debt to God, and which somebody has to pay off. They believe that Jesus paid the debt for our sins on the Cross-paid the Father, that is, so we would not longer bear the penalty. The central argument between Protestants and Catholics has to do with whether "Jesus paid it all" (as Protestants would say) or whether, even though the Cross is sufficient, humans are still obligated (as Catholics would say) to add their own sacrifices as well.

    Orthodox, of course, have a completely different understanding of Christ's saving work. We hold to the view of the early church, that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself." Our sins made us captives of Death, and God in Christ went into Hades to set us free. The penalty of sin is not a debt we owe the Father; it is the soul-death that is the immediate and inevitable consequence of sin. We need healing and rescue, not someone to step in and square the bill. The early Christians always saw the Father pursuing and loving every sinner, doing everything to bring us back, not waiting with arms folded for a debt to be paid. When the Prodigal Son came home, the Father didn't say, "I'd love to take you back, but who's going to pay this Visa bill?"

    This was the common view for the first thousand years of Christianity, until Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury at the time of the Great Schism, offered an alternative view. Anselm believed that God could not merely forgive us, because our sins constituted an objective wrong in the universe. It could not be made right without payment. No human could pay such a huge debt, but Jesus' blood was more than sufficient to pay it, which gave Jesus a "claim" on God the Father. "If the Son chose to make over the claim He had on God to man, could the Father justly forbid Him doing so, or refuse to man what the Son willed to give him?"

    We would say that Western Christians, Protestant and Catholic, have mixed up two Scriptural concepts: "sacrifice/offering" and "ransom/payment." Jesus couldn't have paid the "ransom" for our sins to the Father; you pay a ransom to a kidnapper, and the Father wasn't holding us hostage. No, it was the Evil One who had captured us, due to our voluntary involvement in sin. It cost Jesus his blood to enter Hades and set us free. That's the payment, or ransom, but it obviously isn't paid *to* the Father. Yet it is a sacrifice or offering to the Father, as a brave soldier might offer a dangerous act of courage to his beloved General.

    If I haven't lost you yet, I'd like to take this one step further. As I said, I often have this conversation with other Christians, and make the point that sin is not infraction, but infection; sin makes us sick. The Christian life is one of healing and restoration; its not merely about paying a debt.

    It recently occurred to me that this difference between Western and Eastern Christianity explains something else I hadn't noticed till now: that Orthodoxy doesn't spend a lot of time worrying about the problem of evil. The question of why bad things happen is a major one in the West; it seems to refute the assertion that God is good and loves us. If he's all powerful and loves us completely, why does he let bad things happen? I expect that this lingering image of a God who is reluctant to forgive, waiting to be paid, feeds a suspicion that maybe he *doesn't* really love us.

    I think the Orthodox view of sin as illness, rather than rule-breaking, answers this. There is evil in the world because of the pollution of our sins. Our selfishness and cruelty don't merely hurt those around us, but contribute to setting the world off-balance, out of tune. It has a corporate nature. Anyone can observe that life isn't fair; bad things happen to "good" people. But even good people contribute some sin to the mix, and we all suffer the consequences of the world's mutual sin.

    The radio humorist Garrison Keillor used an image for this that has always remained in my mind. He told a story about a man considering adultery, who contemplated how one act of betrayal can unbalance an entire community: "I saw that we all depend on each other. I saw that although I thought my sins could be secret, that they would be no more secret than an earthquake. All these houses and all these families, my infidelity will somehow shake them. It will pollute the drinking water. It will make noxious gases come out of the ventilators in the elementary school. When we scream in senseless anger, blocks away a little girl we do not know spills a bowl of gravy all over a white tablecloth."

    What we Orthodox keep in mind, and Western Christians often forget, is the presence of the Evil One. In Anselm's theory of the Atonement, there's no Devil. The whole transaction is between us, the Father, and Jesus (and when the Devil is ignored, he has a field day). But Orthodox know who our true enemy is, and we cling to the Lord Jesus as our deliverer. When we see evil in the world, we know immediately that "an enemy has done this" (Matthew 13:28). We're not surprised that life is unfair and that "good" people suffer; when we see innocent suffering, we know that our own sins helped cause it, by helping to unbalance the world and make a climate of injustice possible. The Evil One loves to see the innocent suffer, and the fact that such events grieve and trouble us delights him all the more. This is in fact one of the ways we bear the burden of our sins: that we must feel the wrenching pain of seeing innocence suffer, and know that we helped make it happen. Western Christians, on the other hand, who see sin as a private debt between an individual and God, and who forget the presence of the Evil One, can't figure out how God could let an innocent person suffer, and are left with the chilly thought of questioning the goodness of God.

    "Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (Romans 7:24-25). We do not trust in our own strength to get out of this mess, but rely entirely on the power of Jesus Christ, who has "trampled down death by death." Day by day growing in grace, we can contribute to the world's healing, by forgiving our enemies, loving those who hate us, and overcoming evil with good. The first place it needs to be overcome, we know, is in our hearts.

  • ProdigalSon
    ProdigalSon

    And then there's the Prodigal Son view. You screw up, you die, you're sorry you didn't do more with your life, and daddy loves you anyway.

  • cofty
    cofty

    Cofty: your view is a straw man view of the real issues involved. You are talking about pagan chicken blood appeasement, etc.

    No its a simplified version of the truth. If you think I don't understand the theology in detail read the article.

    God's wrath was appeasd by blood. When all the theological mental masturbation is over its just a new twist on pagan blood sacrifice

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit