Did the ransom sacrifice even work?

by Sharpie 58 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman

    Apply the ransom

    Legally speaking, as Alan F pointed out, how is it just for humanity to suffer and die after justice was served with the payment of the ransom. The physical effects of the antibiotics starting to work are felt during the millennium. Jesus resurrected the dead, restored people to good health is proof that the ransom works. So to answer the question raised in the Topic, Jesus gave empirical evidence that the ransom works—for some people, the ones that were healed by Jesus. That is not really the issue that the ransom works. The tension is that Adam sinned resulting in God demanding justice in the payment of a ransom to him and since justice was served, what is the legal reason for humans to suffer so horribly and die ((and especially caused by Christianity instead of christianity at least mitigating human suffering). The application of the ransom is not a legal reason why humans are required to suffer and die when somebody else already did that for all humans, Jesus. Legally speaking, why is the ransom not working physically?— Playing devil’s advocate.

  • waton
    waton
  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze

    @ Fisherman

    Wow... where to start ? First of all, I am sympathetic to your WT indoctrination. I was a 4th generation JW and regular pioneer when I woke up. It took several years sitting in a decent bible-believing church to undo WT insanity. But here goes:

    Legally speaking, as Alan F pointed out, how is it just for humanity to suffer and die after justice was served with the payment of the ransom.

    First of all AlanF was just another unsaved XJW that had no grasp of Christinaity just like we all were at one time. There are actually three parts to humans. Soul, Body, and Spirit. Only the spirit is renewed and immortalized in man upon getting saved. This is characterized as a downpayment in scripture of the full restoratation to come pertaining to the other two parts - soul and body.

    Secondly, a person must accept the death penalty payment on their behalf in order for the contract "for the forgivness of sins" to be ratified on their behalf. It's kinda like when you ask a girl out on a date. If she says no, you don't throw a fit, you eventually move on.

    The physical effects of the antibiotics starting to work are felt during the millennium. Jesus resurrected the dead, restored people to good health is proof that the ransom works.

    There are no resurrections described during the Millinium Reign. This is a total unbiblical WT fabrication. What scriptures can you point to the say this? None. The reality is that when unsaved people are resurrected, it is done at the END of the Thousand Year Reign. - "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished"

    And, it is to face judgment at the Great White Throne, not to pet Panda bears like the WT deceives.


    So to answer the question raised in the Topic, Jesus gave empirical evidence that the ransom works—for some people, the ones that were healed by Jesus. That is not really the issue that the ransom works.

    The proof that we have is Jesus' resurrection. It is our guarantee along with his word since Jesus said that he would resurrect himself from the dead and then did it. This alone is the object of the Christian faith - Jesus' death, burial and resurrection. No other evidence is needed beyond this. If Jesus' was RAISED FROM THE DEAD, THEN OUR RESURRECTION IS JUST AS SECURE TOO.... if we agree to the terms.

    The tension is that Adam sinned resulting in God demanding justice in the payment of a ransom

    Wrong.... God demanded death as payment of sin - ours. God never demanded a ransom. That is just nuts. Where is that in scripture? God provided a ransom because Jesus (who was also God in his Spirit) said that he would do it. He specifically said that "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again." John 10: 17

    There is no legal imperative for God to save anyone. Salvation is a kindness... undeserved, unmerited and legally unnecessary. Your next breath is a gift from God, because his has a rule, the punishment of sin is death.

    to him and since justice was served, what is the legal reason for humans to suffer so horribly and die ((and especially caused by Christianity instead of christianity at least mitigating human suffering). The application of the ransom is not a legal reason why humans are required to suffer and die when somebody else already did that for all humans, Jesus. Legally speaking, why is the ransom not working physically?— Playing devil’s advocate.

    Didn't really make a lot of sense out of this statement. But, in a nutshell the Godward effect of Jesus, death, burial and resurrection is called propitiation. It means that God ruled that a VICARIOUS death penalty is acceptable to him and would be allowed to be applied in place of a sinner if he or she chooses.

    The manward effect of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ is called reconciliation. But no where is reconciliation said to save a person. It simply refers to its availability. In other words, man is now savable.

    Jesus offers the actual contract "for forgivness of sins" in Mt. 26: 27-28. This is the contract that JW's reject at each memorial.

    If a person does not believe that Jesus was raised from the dead and if they do not accept this contract "for the forgivness of sins", then both the legal concession (Propitiation) and the availability (Reconciliation) are moot.

    What you are missing is the vicarious nature of the actual sacrifice "the just for the unjust" - 1 Peter 3: 18

    You see Fisherman, Jesus didn't die to "buy back what Adam lost". That is way to general of a statement to understand anything meaningful. What happened is that Jesus actually "became sin"... just like when the ancient priests would place the sins of a person on an animal and slaughter the animal in place of the sinner.

    The animal suffered the death penalty in place of the sinner. Remember when the priests would place the sins of the people on a goat and send it away into he wilderness to face certain death? That is what Jesus did for you. He want's to take your death penalty for you, in your place. Because he loves you and saw what a terrible predicament we are in. He want's to be your scape goat, if you'll place your sins on him.

    For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. 2 Cor. 2: 21

    See how we trade places with Jesus? That is the exchage.... if a person wants it. The WT tries everything they can to hide this simlpe and beautiful offer. It is a very generous offer.

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman
    God never demandeda ransom.

    Depends on how you interpret that he demanded a ransom. Off the top of my head verbatim:

    ” God gave his only begotten son so that those exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.” And “Father, .. let this cup pass..your will.” So you see, the ransom was something that God required or demanded in order to satisfy his standard of justice so he could save mankind without offending his attribute of justice. Adam had not excuse to sin but imperfect humans can argue as king David said in the Psalms, that they were born that way so on what just standard could God abandon mankind without demanding justice —that is to say, the ransom. I understand you have your own theology- that I totally disagree with- but in terms of legal and justice from God’s point of view the question arises that Alan F highlighted. Of course your view is respected and your commentary is appreciated at least by me. But I hope you at least understand the point Alan F made.

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze

    So you see, the ransom was something that God required or demanded in order to satisfy his standard of justice so he could save mankind without offending his attribute of justice.

    No, I don't see. The death penalty is what was demanded. It is the death penalty that satisfies the demands of Justice, not the ransom. "The wages of sin is death".

    If you have ever broken any of the ten commandments, you are going to die and later be tried. You will be resurrected after the thousand year reign and will stand trial, fully resurrected in your own body. At this trial, you will be "judged by your deeds". Believers on the other hand will not be judged by their deeds, they are judged vicariously by the deeds of Jesus - "the just for the unjust" - "There is therefore NOW, no condemnation for those in Christ". Romans 8: 1

    But we are all sure to face judgment:

    "it is appointed unto man once to die, and then judgment". - Heb. 9: 27

    There is a resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous. The righteous are "resurrected unto life and the unrighteous are resurrected unto damnation". Either way, the death penalty will be imposed either vicariously or personally as a just punishment for the sins you are guilty of (not Adam).

    Adam had not excuse to sin but imperfect humans can argue as king David said in the Psalms, that they were born that way so on what just standard could God abandon mankind without demanding justice —that is to say, the ransom.

    This is just twisted upside-down thinking, born from an unsaved and sociopathic mind. A mind with a 7th grade education who believed they were prophesied about in scripture and was appointed ruler over all the earth. This is where you got your theology. Russell was a madman who believed his own manure. The world knows all about Russell.

    My bible says that man has no excuse: "since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse" - Romans 1: 20

    In Job 41:11 we find God stating that He doesn’t owe anyone anything.

    “Who has given to Me, that I should repay him? Whatever is under the whole heaven is Mine.”

    It is like those infected with WT theology are under some sort of spell and are totally incapable of understanding the idea of grace and are innoculated against receiving it. God owes you nothing but death and condemnation.

    I understand you have your own theology- that I totally disagree with-

    You are hearing a clear presentation of the gospel that Christians are unified around, whether they are Calvinists, amillinialists or post tribulationists. This "ministry of reconciliation" started with the apostles and is preached unaltered by hundreds of millions of Christians. It is widely understood and firmly rooted in scripture as securely as anything can be.

    The Russell gospel of: God owing us a ransom is a false gospel, designed to obscure God's offer of a "free gift" . How can you accept a free gift if it is owed to you as you describe? ... and you must receive it for it to become activated on your behalf:

    "For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ." - 2 Cor. 5: 21

    See, how the WT ranson doctrine is designed to steal your opportunity? You must RECEIVE the GIFT of righteousness. If God owes you something like the WT teaches, it is no longer a gift and you cannot receive a gift that is not there. Now can you see the WT steal?

    Disconnect from the WT matrix and read your bible.

  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    JP writes

    Here’s the clue I’ve mentioned from the Old Testament about God being the recipient of a ransom. In Psalm 49:7–8, we read, “Truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of his life, for the ransom of their life is costly and can never suffice” In Psalm 49:15, we then read, “But God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol, for he will receive me.”

    I don’t think this is a direct reference to the ransom of Christ, but rather a picture of how difficult it is to get people out of Sheol, which is laying claim on all these human beings like a kidnapper. But it certainly is suggestive that if a ransom is to be involved in rescuing humans from death, it’s not going to be unbiblical to talk about paying it to God.

    So when Jesus comes into the world, he says in Mark 10:45, “For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:20, “You were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.”

    God Paid God

    Here’s why I think the ransom was paid by God to God, and in what sense it was a ransom. The key text that is absolutely crucial, I think, is Romans 3:24–25. Here’s what it says: “[They] are justified by his grace as a gift” — that’s what it means to be treated graciously — “through the redemption” — the ransoming — “that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood” — in other words, a sacrificial offering made on the mercy seat to God to avert his wrath and restore men (what a ransom does is restore us to the rightful parent or God or whomever we’ve been kidnapped from, so to speak) — “to be received by faith.”

    “The payment was not silver and gold, but the blood of Christ exalting and restoring the glory of God.”

    The picture is the following: Man has fallen short — far short of the glory of God. He has offended the glory of God. He has besmirched and dishonored the glory of God (Romans 3:23). We have committed treason by exchanging the glory of God for images (Romans 1:23).

    God in his holiness and wrath upholds the glory of his name by sentencing us in condemnation — to eternal suffering in hell. But he’s also a God of great mercy, and he prepared another way for his glory to be upheld in justice. That’s what Romans 3:25 is about — namely, by sacrificing his Son for those who believe ...

    Free from Wrath

    That sacrifice, Paul says, ransomed or redeemed people from the wrath of God. What a glorious gospel! Saved from the wrath of God! Romans 5:9 says, “Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.”

    That’s the big issue. That’s the big problem in the universe — God’s wrath. By the shedding of blood, we have escaped the wrath of God. The blood ransoms; it redeems from the wrath of God. If someone asked, “How did it do that? How did the payment actually work?” I would say that what was paid was the repair of God’s dishonor. The repair of God’s dishonored glory. The death of Jesus, in giving up so much glory out of love and honor to the Father, has repaired all that has been dishonored by the sins of God’s people. That’s what’s been paid.

    In that sense, I think the ransom was paid by God in Christ to God in sending his Son to die. He died to rescue us from God’s wrath because we could never, ever pay the massive debt of glory that we owed to the Father. The payment was not silver and gold, but the blood of Christ exalting and restoring the glory of God.

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman
    No, I don't see.

    ok

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze

    In Psalm 49:15, we then read, “But God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol, for he will receive me.”

    Vanderhoven7,

    Doesn't the above scripture you cited indicate that Sheol is the recipient of the payment? We even have an fairly common expression today, "He will have hell to pay for that".

    Seems to indicate that Sheol is the recipinent of     the payment, not God. This fits ratheer nicely with scripture which says, "the wages of sin is death".

    Jesus paid hell for us.

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    It's one of the threads that if pulled on hard reveals a lot about early Xtian origins and doctrine. Surprising to many is that some of the earliest forms of Christianity held no salvific importance to the death of the Christ. The various forms of what's called docetic Xtianity, dating from the 1rst century, even held the death to have been an illusion or purely mystical. Their Christ was a teacher and agent of the divine that opened eyes to truths. Clearly, they did not have a ransom doctrine. Even among those who sought to counter these views could not agree on why Christ had to die.

    Very early layers seem to include the idea that the physical death of the Christ was almost irrelevant other than capping off the story of the incarnation. The incarnation of God into human form was seen as the saving redeeming act. It elevated human potential to becoming like Christ. He opened the way as it were. To others the death was interpreted as sacrificial in an expiatory fashion yet required beneficiaries act Christlike even to suffer and die to be elevated to Christ's nature. No concept of a monetary ransom from someone. Some seem to have used the term translated "ransom" to mean redeemed. Like the OT passages this implied the standing with God was remedied not that a tit for tat exchange took place. In short, the storyline that Christ descended and was killed, begged for theologians to interpret the how's and whys. Numerous textual alterations are evident today that reveal an active effort to refute one or more of these theological views. Docetism was 'disproven' by repeated references to blood and flesh. If the blood and flesh were essential aspects of the death, then that required more theological theory. I'm tired now, but if anyone wants to break into this I can.

  • waton
    waton
    Jesus paid hell for us.

    should that not read "gehennah" the lake of fire?

    Adam went to gehennah, Jesus, the second Adam, was never there.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit