OSAS doctrine denies the faith

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Jul 22, 2014
10,350
51
0
The verses clearly say "ALL unrighteousness." Do you know that cults practice the very technique you are using to justify your eisegesis? It's called "collapsing the context". Sin unto death isn't even mentioned until I John 5:16.

[SUP]I John 1: 8 [/SUP]If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. [SUP]9 [/SUP]If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
No. It is called a logical deduction. If all future sin is forgiven you because of a belief on Jesus, it would not make any sense to confess sin so as to be forgiven of sin as 1 John 1:9 says. It also would not make sense to confess those types of sins that do not lead unto death. For sins that do not lead unto death would naturally be automatically forgiven because there is no penalty attached to those types of sin. So that only leaves the sins that lead unto death that one must confess in order to be forgiven of it.

As for being cleansed of all unrighteousness: Again, if this is referring to future sin, then 1 John 1:9 would not make any sense. For it says if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive of our sins.

The cause is... confessing sin
And the effect is... forgiveness of sin.

1 John 1:9 does not say one must have a mental acknowledgment on Jesus in order to be forgiven of sin. You might like it if it said that; But it really doesn't say that.
 

prove-all

Senior Member
May 16, 2014
5,977
400
83
63
I have rejected Herbies interpretation of Scripture but he was better than the Pelagians.
I commented on your remark

I am not confident they were saved spiritually .
so thought I could give help in a verse

The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it:

[because they repented] at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
they repented and I believe they where saved.

not sure why you claim no one but you can see this but you,
and also ramble about youre former church
 

Grandpa

Senior Member
Jun 24, 2011
11,551
3,190
113
Penal Substitution teaches that Jesus literally bore the full wrath of God in place of the sinner. Basically Jesus stepped up to the plate and took the punishment due as a substitute. Thus with the punishment already being meted out it cannot be demanded due again, ie. it is paid in full.

That is a denial of sins being forgiven. If I am to pay your traffic fine on your behalf the fine is not forgiven, it is merely paid for by someone else.

The thing is you don't want to acknowledge that very basic and obvious logical tenet. You prefer to just ignore it and roll with your dogma. That is akin to throwing your brain out the window for you have to suppress your reasoning faculties.

Neither Hebrews 9:22-23 and Leviticus say a single word about Penal Substitition. They speak of an offering by which our sins are remitted. Jesus was a sin offering not a penal substitute. There is a big difference.
Acknowledge the very basic and logical tenet???

We transgressed and Christ was wounded for it. That is penal substitution. It doesn't actually use the words penal substitution but it absolutely is penal substitution. There is a penalty and the one that transgressed doesn't pay it. The substitue pays it.

There is a penalty for transgressing God. Death. Christ suffered it in our stead. He took the wrath of God, the curse, for us.

Because of this we can recieve the blessing, in Christ. For what He has done for us.

Not what we do for God. Not our obedience, not our perfect walk. Not that we loved God, with all our mind, strength and heart, but that He Loved Us and sent His Only Begotten Son to save us.

Jesus was much more than JUST a penal substitution. He was much more than JUST a sin offering. The Lord Jesus is Gods Hand reaching down to humanity, in its affliction.

Sins are forgiven because they are paid for. Not by you. By Christ. Not by your obedience. By Christ.

Do you know what Atonement is? The very word suggests penal substitution. You didn't atone for your sin. The Lord Jesus, By His Blood, Atoned for your sin. Paid the price for.
 

Grandpa

Senior Member
Jun 24, 2011
11,551
3,190
113
This is kind of silly to argue something so obvious.
 
S

sparkman

Guest
No. It is called a logical deduction. If all future sin is forgiven you because of a belief on Jesus, it would not make any sense to confess sin so as to be forgiven of sin as 1 John 1:9 says. It also would not make sense to confess those types of sins that do not lead unto death. For sins that do not lead unto death would naturally be automatically forgiven because there is no penalty attached to those types of sin. So that only leaves the sins that lead unto death that one must confess in order to be forgiven of it.

As for being cleansed of all unrighteousness: Again, if this is referring to future sin, then 1 John 1:9 would not make any sense. For it says if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive of our sins.

The cause is... confessing sin
And the effect is... forgiveness of sin.

1 John 1:9 does not say one must have a mental acknowledgment on Jesus in order to be forgiven of sin. You might like it if it said that; But it really doesn't say that.

Confession restores communion with God. Union with Christ is not jeopardized. A person's sins do affect their communion with God, and need to be forgiven to restore the relationship. God actively pursues reconciliation with us if we stray.

An analogy would be the husband and wife relationship. If you do something inappropriate to your wife, the communion with her is affected, but you are still married to her. When you confess and ask forgiveness, you hopefully restore the relationship. The marriage itself does not cease, but the communion was temporarily disrupted.

By the way, just so the works righteousness people know, I backslid for several years but God did not give up on me. You can deny my salvation and say or do whatever you guys want, but I know He is faithful. He restored me from that and nothing any of you guys say can change that fact. His covenant love for those he has saved is everlasting. Read Psalm 136.

We enjoy unity with Christ when we were saved (Romans 6:5).We are no longer separate from Him, and that is why Scripture says we are in Christ (John 6:56; Romans 8:1; 2 Corinthians 13:5).We were baptized into Christ (Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:27).We were crucified with Christ (Galatians 2:20).Christ lives in us (Romans 8:10-20; Galatians 2:20).We are identified with him totally. Scripture says that we died with Christ (Romans 6:8; Colossians 2:20),are buried with Christ (Romans 6:4), were made alive with Christ (Ephesians 2:5), were risen with Christ (Ephesians 2:6; Colossians 3:1) and are hidden in Christ (Colossians 3:3).We experience unity with Christ in many ways…we are inseparable from him.

Unity with Christ has importance with regards to security as well.Christ does not deny us because he cannot deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:11-13).Our unity with Christ is a powerful reason why he will not reject us.

Luke 7:47 Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.

I think those who suffer under the delusion that they don't sin actually are very judgmental toward others and it reflects the truth of this verse. If a person thinks that they have little to be forgiven of, they actually are cold, hard, unforgiving, judgmental and unloving people. It's those who are transparent and realize their brokenness who are warm, genuine, loving Christians...not those who labor under the delusion that they are sinless.
 
Last edited:
S

sparkman

Guest
Again you can't leave out that Jesus Himself made it clear that He gave His life as a RANSOM for many,we can't minimize it either. Nor did I say that substitutionary atonement is NOT part of it. I believe scripture points to BOTH and the question should be HOW DO THEY FIT together?
Hi Sarah

I will refer you to the book The Truth of the Cross by RC Sproul. It is a fantastic book on the atonement of Christ.

Here is an excerpt from the book that is pertinent to this thread:
Just as there are three basic types of theology, there are three basic views of the atonement with respect to its necessity historically. First, there are those who believe that an atonement is absolutely unnecessary. The Pelagians in all their forms fall into this category. Pelagianism, originating in the fourth century; Socinianism, which arose in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; and what we would call liberalism as a distinctive theology today are all essentially non-Christian because at the heart of each is a denial of the atonement of Jesus Christ. These schools of thought, by taking away the reconciling action of Christ from the New Testament, are left with nothing but moralisms. For them, the cross is where Jesus died as a moral example for men. They view Him as an existential hero, as One Who brings inspiration to us by His commitment and devotion to self-sacrifice and to His humanistic concerns. But these moralisms are anything but unique and hardly worthy of allegiance. In Pelagianism, there is no salvation, no Savior, and no atonement because in Pelagianism no such salvation is necessary.

Second, there are those who believe an atonement is only hypothetically necessary. This view historically expresses the idea that God could have redeemed us by a host of ways and means, or He could have chosen to overlook human sin. However, He did something dramatic when He committed Himself to a certain course of action. He chose to redeem us by the cross, by an atonement. Once He committed Himself, it became necessary, not de jure or de facto, but de pacto—that is, by virtue of a pact or a covenant that God made by issuing a promise that He would do a particular thing. The promise was gratuitous in that it was not necessary for Him to do it, but He nevertheless made the promise. He was then committed to that course of action. That's what is meant by a hypothetical necessity for an atonement.


The third view, which is the classical, orthodox Christian view, which I am convinced is the biblical view, is that an atonement was not merely hypothetically necessary for man's redemption, but was absolutely necessary if any person was ever going to be reconciled to God and redeemed. For this reason, orthodoxy has held for centuries that the cross is an essential of Christianity, essential in the sense that it is a sine qua non, "without which it could not be." If you take away the cross as an atoning act, you take away Christianity.


In regards to ransom, though, he talks about the concept of redemption. The concept of ransom stands behind the broad biblical term redemption. The concept of redemption is reflected in Scripture particularly in the book of Ruth. A redeemer is one that takes action to set another free. God was Israel's redeemer when he delivered them from Egypt. Exodus is a story about redemption.

Here is another excerpt from the book:
That brings us back to the cross, where Jesus made atonement for His people, satisfying the requirements of God's justice. As we have seen, the atonement is a multifaceted event - Jesus is shown providing surety for our debt to God, mediating the enmity between us and God, and offering Himself as a substitute to suffer God's judgment in our place. But He is also seen in the New Testament as the Redeemer, the One Who redeems His people from captivity, setting them free by offering Himself as a ransom.

There's a lot more material in this book and it would be great to have in your library. I could review it a little more if the above doesn't satisfy your question.

One point he makes is that some hold the opinion that the "ransom" was paid to Satan, but he does not agree with this view. The offense concerning sin is to God, so the "payment" was made to God, not Satan.
 
S

sparkman

Guest
This is kind of silly to argue something so obvious.
I agree. It is not the orthodox view which requires defending..it is the unorthodox, heretical view that has the burden of proof.
 
Dec 26, 2012
5,853
137
0
Hi Sarah

I will refer you to the book The Truth of the Cross by RC Sproul. It is a fantastic book on the atonement of Christ.
Sparkman,

I thank for your time to do all that,but I did NOT ask how R C Sproul,Luther,Calvin,Wesley,Finney et al reconciles the verse. If I wanted their answer I know how to look it up. I asked how YOU reconcile those verses.
 
Dec 26, 2012
5,853
137
0
Jesus was your example not substitute.

Pe 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us,leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
1Pe 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
1Pe 2:23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
1Pe 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

Substitution negates the "living unto righteousness."

Why does it do so?
 
Dec 26, 2012
5,853
137
0
What kind of Holy God would forgive a child molester who continues to molest children? Is that what you think grace is? Grace is some kind of cloak for ongoing wickedness? Come on people. Be honest with yourselves, think of these things from the heart.
If one is still doing those things does that person truly love their brothers and sisters?

1 John 3

[SUP]11 [/SUP]For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. [SUP]12 [/SUP]Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous. [SUP]13 [/SUP]Do not be surprised, my brothers and sisters,[SUP][b][/SUP] if the world hates you. [SUP]14 [/SUP]We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. [SUP]15 [/SUP]Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.

[SUP]16 [/SUP]This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. [SUP]17 [/SUP]If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? [SUP]18 [/SUP]Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.

[SUP]19 [/SUP]This is how we know that we belong to the truth and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence: [SUP]20 [/SUP]If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. [SUP]21 [/SUP]Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God [SUP]22 [/SUP]and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. [SUP]23[/SUP]And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. [SUP]24 [/SUP]The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.

1 John 4

[SUP]7 [/SUP]Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. [SUP]8 [/SUP]Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. [SUP]9[/SUP]This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. [SUP]10 [/SUP]This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. [SUP]11 [/SUP]Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. [SUP]12 [/SUP]No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

[SUP]13 [/SUP]This is how we know that we live in him and he in us: He has given us of his Spirit. [SUP]14 [/SUP]And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. [SUP]15 [/SUP]If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in them and they in God. [SUP]16 [/SUP]And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. [SUP]17 [/SUP]This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus. [SUP]18 [/SUP]There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

[SUP]19 [/SUP]We love because he first loved us. [SUP]20 [/SUP]Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. [SUP]21 [/SUP]And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.

It should be pretty simple right?
:D
 
Dec 26, 2012
5,853
137
0
You cannot argue with Scripture. I quoted from Isaiah 53. In fact, you would have to ignore the entire animal sacrificial system in order to make your arguments.

Substitutionary atonement is the primary facet of the atonement, which has other facets. The Ransom theory may be a minor facet. However, to deny that substitutionary atonement is the major facet is a massive error and heresy.

As I said above, You'd need to ignore the entire sacrificial system, Isaiah 53 and much of the rest of the Bible to discount substitutionary atonement. A minor facet of the atonement may be related to the ransom theory but that definitely does not negate the massive primary facet related to substitutionary atonement. The fallacy involved in this is called fallacy of the single cause. That fallacy is the one you are committing. In fact, youre not only committing the fallacy of the single cause; you are selecting a rather minor cause and ignoring the massive one.

And, most importantly, you are negating God's justness by your assertion. God is just in that he punishes ALL sin. He is merciful in that he provided for Himself a sin offering in Jesus Christ. Christianity has a robust view of atonement compared to other world views due to this very reason. Your view of the atonement corresponds very closely to Islam, which is not surprising since Muslims are basically Pelagians.
Are you sure that the substitutionary atonement is the main thing? You can't leave these out

Colossians 2

[SUP]6 [/SUP]So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live your lives in him, [SUP]7 [/SUP]rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.
[SUP]8 [/SUP]See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces[SUP][a][/SUP] of this world rather than on Christ.
[SUP]9 [/SUP]For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, [SUP]10 [/SUP]and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority. [SUP]11 [/SUP]In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh[SUP][b][/SUP] was put off when you were circumcised by[SUP][c][/SUP] Christ, [SUP]12 [/SUP]having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
[SUP]13 [/SUP]When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you[SUP][d][/SUP] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, [SUP]14 [/SUP]having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. [SUP]15[/SUP]And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.[SUP][e][/SUP]

Romans 8


[SUP]18 [/SUP]I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. [SUP]19[/SUP]For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. [SUP]20 [/SUP]For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope [SUP]21 [/SUP]that[SUP][h][/SUP] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

[SUP]22 [/SUP]We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. [SUP]23 [/SUP]Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. [SUP]24 [/SUP]For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? [SUP]25 [/SUP]But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

Hebrews 2

[SUP]5 [/SUP]It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking. [SUP]6 [/SUP]But there is a place where someone has testified:
“What is mankind that you are mindful of them,
a son of man that you care for him?
[SUP]7 [/SUP]You made them a little[SUP][a][/SUP] lower than the angels;
you crowned them with glory and honor
[SUP]8 [/SUP] and put everything under their feet.”[SUP][b][/SUP][SUP][c][/SUP]

In putting everything under them,[SUP][d][/SUP] God left nothing that is not subject to them.[SUP][e][/SUP] Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them.[SUP][f][/SUP] [SUP]9 [/SUP]But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
[SUP]10 [/SUP]In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered. [SUP]11 [/SUP]Both the one who makes people holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters.[SUP][g][/SUP] [SUP]12 [/SUP]He says,
“I will declare your name to my brothers and sisters;
in the assembly I will sing your praises.”[SUP][h][/SUP]

[SUP]13 [/SUP]And again,
“I will put my trust in him.”[SUP][i][/SUP]


And again he says,
“Here am I, and the children God has given me.”[SUP][j][/SUP]

[SUP]14[/SUP]Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— [SUP]15 [/SUP]and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. [SUP]16 [/SUP]For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. [SUP]17 [/SUP]For this reason he had to be made like them,[SUP][k][/SUP] fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. [SUP]18 [/SUP]Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

1 Corinthians 15

[SUP]20 [/SUP]But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. [SUP]21 [/SUP]For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. [SUP]22 [/SUP]For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. [SUP]23 [/SUP]But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. [SUP]24 [/SUP]Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. [SUP]25 [/SUP]For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. [SUP]26 [/SUP]The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
[SUP]27 [/SUP]For he “has put everything under his feet.”[SUP][c][/SUP] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. [SUP]28 [/SUP]When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.


The main reason God sent into the world was to break the power of sin,death and the devil. Substitution may be a part it is not the main thing. The power of sin had to be broken because that is what LEADS to death. Does it make any sense that God only sent Jesus into the world to pay for our sins but would then STILL leave us in bondage? Isn't the gospel FAR MORE then just Jesus paying for our sins?

John 10

10 “Very truly I tell you Pharisees, anyone who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. [SUP]2 [/SUP]The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. [SUP]3 [/SUP]The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. [SUP]4 [/SUP]When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. [SUP]5 [/SUP]But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice.” [SUP]6 [/SUP]Jesus used this figure of speech, but the Pharisees did not understand what he was telling them.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]Therefore Jesus said again, “Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep. [SUP]8 [/SUP]All who have come before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them. [SUP]9 [/SUP]I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved.[SUP][a][/SUP] They will come in and go out, and find pasture. [SUP]10 [/SUP]The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.

[SUP]11 [/SUP]“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. [SUP]12 [/SUP]The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. [SUP]13 [/SUP]The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.

[SUP]14 [/SUP]“I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— [SUP]15 [/SUP]just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. [SUP]16 [/SUP]I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. [SUP]17 [/SUP]The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. [SUP]18 [/SUP]No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
 
Y

yaright

Guest
More round and round circle jerk theology......the demons do not have FAITH in JESUS and GOD's plan of redemption which is open to humanity and no where offered to demons.....
I agree, but there is a language hidden from the world, because God gave witness and the people of this world did not believe.

Jesus spoke a few parables of the swine concerning men who did not carefully consider God's Word as food for his or her own soul. The nature of the swine and the demons are directly related to what can be found within each of us; that we are to have dominion over. The only legal 'place' for demons is in the nature of a creature that does not carefully consider its food. This is why there was so much said of creatures that chewed the cud by nature ( carefully considering its food). This is the hidden language of creation; but it for the record, it is hidden in plain sight. The whole earth speaks of the nature of men and the Kingdom of Heaven. You have spoken a truth, but our own lives reveal we were not 'all knowing' as we wrestled with the Word of God. If our witness causes a person to understand something that was not understood before, is change unacceptable? As much as we are tempted to call others, 'fools' and 'liars', does Jesus also address this same nature that could be found in all men? Have we counted how may times the first disciples denied the Word of God as they followed Him those three years? Did any of them assault someone or participate in one way or the other in agreement that a person should be assaulted? In the parable of two swords, which a few know of, is the Word of God (the sword) meant to cut a person off from the hearing of the Word of God; Or is the sword meant to cause a type of healing because faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. The battle is not meant to cut a man off from the hearing of the Word of God; The battle is designed by the Word of God to cause a man to surrender to our Lord and King. Did Jesus bring shame upon His disciples when they were corrected? Jesus clearly said, "Satan will sift you like wheat". There are mistakes being made on both sides of the argument. I know this because I am no different than disciples even from the beginning. I understand where my faith in Jesus comes from. It comes from the calling of the Word of God, and I heard the Word of God, believed, repented, picked up my cross and began following Jesus. Is Jesus asking me to do evil? Absolutely not. Than Jesus is teaching me to do good according to His will, which is conflict against the things which seem right to me. Arguing which person is better by the strength of his or her faith or deeds is no different than the first disciples who argued among themselves who was the greatest. Jesus was not at the top of the list.
 

valiant

Senior Member
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
126
63
Again you can't leave out that Jesus Himself made it clear that He gave His life as a RANSOM for many,we can't minimize it either. Nor did I say that substitutionary atonement is NOT part of it. I believe scripture points to BOTH and the question should be HOW DO THEY FIT together?
If you think about it both concepts are basically the same. In the case of a ransom a price is paid in the place of something, and in the case of a substitutionary offering one thing is offered in the place of another.
 

p_rehbein

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2013
30,661
6,852
113
Last edited:
M

Mitspa

Guest
1Jo 4:13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.

1Jo 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
17 ¶ Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.

Its sad that so many are so unsure of their salvation and look to dead works to try and "earn" what God will only give freely by faith :(
 
Dec 26, 2012
5,853
137
0
If you think about it both concepts are basically the same. In the case of a ransom a price is paid in the place of something, and in the case of a substitutionary offering one thing is offered in the place of another.
Sorry they are NOT the same

Ransom meaning

[h=2]Full Definition of RANSOM[/h]1
: a consideration paid or demanded for the release of someone or something from captivity

2
: the act of ransoming

Substitute meaning

[h=2]Full Definition of SUBSTITUTE[/h] : a person or thing that takes the place or function of another


They DO NOT MEAN THE SAME thing by definition.
 
S

sparkman

Guest
Sparkman,

I thank for your time to do all that,but I did NOT ask how R C Sproul,Luther,Calvin,Wesley,Finney et al reconciles the verse. If I wanted their answer I know how to look it up. I asked how YOU reconcile those verses.
The way I reconcile them is that I don't consider the use of ransom to negate in any way the substitutionary nature of the atonement. Christ gave his life to ransom believers from the penalty of sin. Ransom fits under the concept of redemption.

He paid the cost of our sin debt for us, and ransomed us from death by dying on the cross. That is substitutionary by its very nature.
 

valiant

Senior Member
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
126
63
Similar, not the same. One requires a blood sacrifice

Scriptures teach we are a "ransomed" people.........not we are a "substituted for" people

:)

read more here:

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/113580-ransomed.html
Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us' (Gal 3.13). Thus we are both a redeemed people and a substituted for people.

Here redemption IS penal substitution. I do not see how that fact can be avoided.

We are redeemed as a consequence of Him offering Himself for us as a ransom and substitute. Indeed a ransom IS a substitute. Atonement cannot be limited to a single concept.
 
Last edited:

valiant

Senior Member
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
126
63
Sorry they are NOT the same

Ransom meaning

Full Definition of RANSOM

1
: a consideration paid or demanded for the release of someone or something from captivity

2
: the act of ransoming


Dictionaries are not a good place to consult in order to interpret Scripture. The idea of ransom/redemption in Scripture is that a cost is involved in God's activity in saving men. The idea of a bald ransom is never in mind. After all if God pays the ransom who is the ransom paid to? It is paid to Himself (God owes NOTHING to anyone or anything else).

We were ransomed by Christ being made a curse, in order to deliver us from under a curse (Gal 3.10-13). That is penal substitution and yet is described as redemption.

We are 'accounted as righteous freely by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through His blood' (Rom 3.24-25). What could be clearer? We are redeemed by God propitiating His justice through Christ dying for our sins, thus in our place.

Substitute meaning
Full Definition of SUBSTITUTE

: a person or thing that takes the place or function of another



See above. The idea of substitution with regard to our salvation is that of the cost of our sin being paid by another. And that is ransom/redemption.

They DO NOT MEAN THE SAME thing by definition.
They do in Scripture. Christ does not substitute for us full stop. He does not go to Hell so that we can go to Heaven. He substitutes for us by paying the cost of sin in our place, by offering Himself in substitutionary atonement.
 
S

sparkman

Guest
One point to accentuate here...Pelagians deny the absolute necessity of the atonement. In essence that's a denial of Christianity.

Hi Sarah

I will refer you to the book The Truth of the Cross by RC Sproul. It is a fantastic book on the atonement of Christ.

Here is an excerpt from the book that is pertinent to this thread:
Just as there are three basic types of theology, there are three basic views of the atonement with respect to its necessity historically. First, there are those who believe that an atonement is absolutely unnecessary. The Pelagians in all their forms fall into this category. Pelagianism, originating in the fourth century; Socinianism, which arose in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; and what we would call liberalism as a distinctive theology today are all essentially non-Christian because at the heart of each is a denial of the atonement of Jesus Christ. These schools of thought, by taking away the reconciling action of Christ from the New Testament, are left with nothing but moralisms. For them, the cross is where Jesus died as a moral example for men. They view Him as an existential hero, as One Who brings inspiration to us by His commitment and devotion to self-sacrifice and to His humanistic concerns. But these moralisms are anything but unique and hardly worthy of allegiance. In Pelagianism, there is no salvation, no Savior, and no atonement because in Pelagianism no such salvation is necessary.

Second, there are those who believe an atonement is only hypothetically necessary. This view historically expresses the idea that God could have redeemed us by a host of ways and means, or He could have chosen to overlook human sin. However, He did something dramatic when He committed Himself to a certain course of action. He chose to redeem us by the cross, by an atonement. Once He committed Himself, it became necessary, not de jure or de facto, but de pacto—that is, by virtue of a pact or a covenant that God made by issuing a promise that He would do a particular thing. The promise was gratuitous in that it was not necessary for Him to do it, but He nevertheless made the promise. He was then committed to that course of action. That's what is meant by a hypothetical necessity for an atonement.


The third view, which is the classical, orthodox Christian view, which I am convinced is the biblical view, is that an atonement was not merely hypothetically necessary for man's redemption, but was absolutely necessary if any person was ever going to be reconciled to God and redeemed. For this reason, orthodoxy has held for centuries that the cross is an essential of Christianity, essential in the sense that it is a sine qua non, "without which it could not be." If you take away the cross as an atoning act, you take away Christianity.


In regards to ransom, though, he talks about the concept of redemption. The concept of ransom stands behind the broad biblical term redemption. The concept of redemption is reflected in Scripture particularly in the book of Ruth. A redeemer is one that takes action to set another free. God was Israel's redeemer when he delivered them from Egypt. Exodus is a story about redemption.

Here is another excerpt from the book:
That brings us back to the cross, where Jesus made atonement for His people, satisfying the requirements of God's justice. As we have seen, the atonement is a multifaceted event - Jesus is shown providing surety for our debt to God, mediating the enmity between us and God, and offering Himself as a substitute to suffer God's judgment in our place. But He is also seen in the New Testament as the Redeemer, the One Who redeems His people from captivity, setting them free by offering Himself as a ransom.

There's a lot more material in this book and it would be great to have in your library. I could review it a little more if the above doesn't satisfy your question.

One point he makes is that some hold the opinion that the "ransom" was paid to Satan, but he does not agree with this view. The offense concerning sin is to God, so the "payment" was made to God, not Satan.