Butch5 said:

Hi Chris,

Being a Berean is good. We just have to remember that those in that day knew a lot more about those times than we do. Everything we read we filter through our beliefs.

I would give some food for though. The idea of Penal Atonement is a product of the Reformation. It's an idea from the 1500's. It came about by the Reformers tweaking the former doctrine called the Satisfaction model. The Satisfaction model is an idea that came out of the mind of a Catholic theologian named Anselm of Canterbury. His thinking was along the lines of, man has committed sin against God. He said this sin is so great that man could not possible atone for it. The one way it could be atoned for is by someone who is perfect, thus Christ is the only one who could make that atonement. This was called the Satisfaction model. The idea is that Christ satisfied God's wrath against the sinner. The Reformers tweaked this and put it in a more forensic model. Christ paid man's sin debt to God.

However, as I said, this idea, the Satisfaction model, is a product of the 1100's. So, what did Christian's believe for the first 1000 years of Christian history? They believed in an idea called the Ransom model. This model says that Christ choose to give his life as a ransom for man. However, the payment wasn't to God, it was to Satan. It held that man had fallen under Satan's authority when Adam and Eve had sinned and eaten from The Tree of Knowledge. It holds that man would die alienated from God. However, in steps Jesus who offers Himself as a ransom to buy back man's freedom and reconcile, (atone) him back to God.

Sometimes people balk at this idea because they don't like the idea of God paying a ransom to Satan. However, this was the belief of the Christian faith for the first 1000 years. It is also the one concept that fits with all of Scripture. As I've pointed out the Penal Model doesn't fit with Scripture. In the Model we see the "debt" being paid twice and there is no forgiveness in that model, yet forgiveness is all through the Scriptures. The Satisfaction model has the same problems. The Ransom model however, doesn't have those problems. In the ransom model Jesus can take away the sin of the world without the idea of Universalism coming into the equation. In this model even though man is reconciled to God, no longer under Satan's control, he still has his sins to deal with. This is where forgiveness comes in. So, in this model Jesus can die for sins and yet man can still receive forgiveness. It doesn't have the problems that the other two models have.

Here is a link to a teacher of early Christian history. This is what Christians believed for the first 1000 years of Christianity.

Click to expand...

Hello @Butch5,

Thank you for this interesting response regarding atonement.

There are two main aspects of the one Sacrifice offered by our Saviour, the first being Redemption, finding its type in the Passover (Exod 12), the second awaiting the erection of the Tabernacle and the propitiatory offerings that gave access into the presence of God. The former gave 'deliverance from', and the latter 'access to'.
By His one offering the Lord Jesus Christ was at the same time the great Antitype of the Passover Lamb, offered without Priest or alter in Egypt; and the Goat of the Day of Atonement, whose blood was taken by the High Priest within the veil.

* Atonement has the meaning of 'at-one-ment', or of reconciliation.

* While the basic meaning of the word translated 'atonement' in the Old Testament is, 'to cover', it does not mean to 'cover up', for it is written, 'He that covereth his sins shall not prosper'. The word means not only 'to cover', but by usage, to protect and to compensate, to cover by compensation. The Oxford Dictionary gives as one of the meanings of cover:- 'To be sufficient to defray a charge, or to meet a liability; to compensate a loss or risk; to protect by insurance or the like, to provide cover, to insure oneself.'

* The Hebrew word kopher is the word 'ransom'. The very presence of such a provision in the Scripture testifies to the fact that God is a moral Ruler, for sheer omnipotence uninfluenced by moral issues could brush aside all objections, or dispense with both Redemption and Atonement. It also shows that man too is a responsible moral agent.

* References to a ransom, that covers by compensation in the O.T., include:- Exodus 21:30, Exodus 30:16; Numbers 3:49; Numbers 35:31.
* References to the price paid in the redemption of the sinner in the N.T.:- 1 Peter 1:18-19; 1 Corinthians 6:19-20; Acts 20:18.
* The word 'ransom' in the N.T. is found in Matthew 20:28 and 1 Timothy 2:5-6.

' Even as the Son of man came
not to be ministered unto,
but to minister,
and to give His life a ransom for many.'
(Mat 20:28)

* I do not believe that the death of Christ actually paid a ransom to the Devil however, for there is no Scripture to maintain it.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Butch5 said:

Hi Chris,

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Click to expand...

Hi @Butch5,

If you think neither has anything to contribute to your discussion with B-A-C, that's fine. No problem.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

complete said:

Hi @Butch5,

If you think neither has anything to contribute to your discussion with B-A-C, that's fine. No problem.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Click to expand...

I'm just not sure of the point you're making.

complete said:

Hello @Butch5,

Thank you for this interesting response regarding atonement.

There are two main aspects of the one Sacrifice offered by our Saviour, the first being Redemption, finding its type in the Passover (Exod 12), the second awaiting the erection of the Tabernacle and the propitiatory offerings that gave access into the presence of God. The former gave 'deliverance from', and the latter 'access to'.
By His one offering the Lord Jesus Christ was at the same time the great Antitype of the Passover Lamb, offered without Priest or alter in Egypt; and the Goat of the Day of Atonement, whose blood was taken by the High Priest within the veil.

* Atonement has the meaning of 'at-one-ment', or of reconciliation.

* While the basic meaning of the word translated 'atonement' in the Old Testament is, 'to cover', it does not mean to 'cover up', for it is written, 'He that covereth his sins shall not prosper'. The word means not only 'to cover', but by usage, to protect and to compensate, to cover by compensation. The Oxford Dictionary gives as one of the meanings of cover:- 'To be sufficient to defray a charge, or to meet a liability; to compensate a loss or risk; to protect by insurance or the like, to provide cover, to insure oneself.'

* The Hebrew word kopher is the word 'ransom'. The very presence of such a provision in the Scripture testifies to the fact that God is a moral Ruler, for sheer omnipotence uninfluenced by moral issues could brush aside all objections, or dispense with both Redemption and Atonement. It also shows that man too is a responsible moral agent.

* References to a ransom, that covers by compensation in the O.T., include:- Exodus 21:30, Exodus 30:16; Numbers 3:49; Numbers 35:31.
* References to the price paid in the redemption of the sinner in the N.T.:- 1 Peter 1:18-19; 1 Corinthians 6:19-20; Acts 20:18.
* The word 'ransom' in the N.T. is found in Matthew 20:28 and 1 Timothy 2:5-6.

' Even as the Son of man came
not to be ministered unto,
but to minister,
and to give His life a ransom for many.'
(Mat 20:28)

* I do not believe that the death of Christ actually paid a ransom to the Devil however, for there is no Scripture to maintain it.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Click to expand...

Hi Chris,
As I pointed out in the other post, this was the original belief among Christians. That begs the question, where did they get this idea from? People who were taught by the apostles believed that the ransom was paid to the Devil. This was the teaching of the Christian Church for its first 1000 years. What we have today started from a single Catholic theologian a thousand years later.

Another question that arises is if not the Devil, who was the ransom paid to? One doesnt pay a ransom to themselves. It wouldn't make sense for God to give Christ as a ransom to Himself.

Again, the satisfactions and Penal models don't make sense.
I would encourage you to listen to the link I posted.

Butch5 said:

Hi Chris,
As I pointed out in the other post, this was the original belief among Christians. That begs the question, where did they get this idea from? People who were taught by the apostles believed that the ransom was paid to the Devil. This was the teaching of the Christian Church for its first 1000 years. What we have today started from a single Catholic theologian a thousand years later.

Another question that arises is if not the Devil, who was the ransom paid to? One doesnt pay a ransom to themselves. It wouldn't make sense for God to give Christ as a ransom to Himself.

Again, the satisfactions and Penal models don't make sense.
I would encourage you to listen to the link I posted.

Click to expand...

Hello again, @Butch5,

I have started to listen to it already, and will continue to the end if I can.

How important it is that we take time to consider all that we are taught, in the light of the testimony of Scripture, and not simply believe all that we hear, simply because it comes from what appears to be an authoritative source. Scripture itself must be the arbiter in all matters of doctrinal importance.

Thank you.
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Butch5 said:

Hi Chris,
As I pointed out in the other post, this was the original belief among Christians. That begs the question, where did they get this idea from? People who were taught by the apostles believed that the ransom was paid to the Devil. This was the teaching of the Christian Church for its first 1000 years. What we have today started from a single Catholic theologian a thousand years later.

Another question that arises is if not the Devil, who was the ransom paid to? One doesnt pay a ransom to themselves. It wouldn't make sense for God to give Christ as a ransom to Himself.

Again, the satisfactions and Penal models don't make sense.
I would encourage you to listen to the link I posted.

Click to expand...

Hello @Butch5,

I need to give time to this, but my thoughts in regard to your question would be that God is Just, but He is also the Justifier, His justice demands atonement, but He also provides that atonement in the person and work of His Only Begotten Son. Christ is the Mediator between God and man, and not God and the Devil. Christ speaks and acts on behalf of God and Man.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

complete said:

Hello again, @Butch5,

I have started to listen to it already, and will continue to the end if I can.

How important it is that we take time to consider all that we are taught, in the light of the testimony of Scripture, and not simply believe all that we hear, simply because it comes from what appears to be an authoritative source. Scripture itself must be the arbiter in all matters of doctrinal importance.

Thank you.
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Click to expand...

Hi Chris,

I agree whole heartedly. However, when we say Scripture must be the arbiter, what we really mean is "our understanding of Scripture" must be the arbiter. The Scriptures can't speak and say, this is what the passage means. We read the Scriptures, and filter them through what we already know and believe to be true. These are our preconceptions.

I didn't post the link because he is an authoritative source. He has no authority, he's just another guy. I posted it because he has laid out a sound argument and cited credible sources from the early Christians as to what they believed. We look at his argument to see if it is sound and valid. If it is then we consider his sources which are the actual people in question. After seeing the argument and the evidence we can make a reliable decision as to what they believed.

Butch5 said:

Hi Chris,

I agree whole heartedly. However, when we say Scripture must be the arbiter, what we really mean is "our understanding of Scripture" must be the arbiter. The Scriptures can't speak and say, this is what the passage means. We read the Scriptures, and filter them through what we already know and believe to be true. These are our preconceptions.

I didn't post the link because he is an authoritative source. He has no authority, he's just another guy. I posted it because he has laid out a sound argument and cited credible sources from the early Christians as to what they believed. We look at his argument to see if it is sound and valid. If it is then we consider his sources which are the actual people in question. After seeing the argument and the evidence we can make a reliable decision as to what they believed.

Click to expand...

Hi there, @Butch5,

My words were not intended to point the finger at the man in the link, or to call in question your reason for giving it. It was a statement in regard to all of our influences, for yes, as you say, our understanding of Scripture is influenced by what has formed our reasoning. Yet, it is still the yardstick by which our reasoning or influences must be judged.

I am alongside and not opposed to you in this regard. I too simply want to know the truth concerning this matter.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

complete said:

Hello @Butch5,

I need to give time to this, but my thoughts in regard to your question would be that God is Just, but He is also the Justifier, His justice demands atonement, but He also provides that atonement in the person and work of His Only Begotten Son. Christ is the Mediator between God and man, and not God and the Devil. Christ speaks and acts on behalf of God and Man.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Click to expand...

Hi Chris,

Let me challenge one of your preconceptions. Can we establish from Scripture that God's Justice "demands" atonement?

Yes Christ is the mediator between God and man. He has ransomed, or bought back mankind, thus He can be the mediator between God and man.

One of the biggest issues with the satisfaction/Penal models of the atonement is that they make man the enemy of God rather than the Devil. Under these models the Devil really plays no role in anything. He's really just a secondary character in the battle between God and man. In the Ransom model the Devil is a primary player. In the ransom model there is a battle between God and the Devil over the the future of man kind. Why did the Devil tempt Eve in the garden? Why did the Devil seek to test Job?

Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the LORD. And the LORD said to Satan, “From where have you come?” Satan answered the LORD and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.” And the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil? He still holds fast his integrity, although you incited me against him to destroy him without reason.” Then Satan answered the LORD and said, “Skin for skin! All that a man has he will give for his life. But stretch out your hand and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse you to your face.” And the LORD said to Satan, “Behold, he is in your hand; only spare his life.”

complete said:

Hi there, @Butch5,

My words were not intended to point the finger at the man in the link, or to call in question your reason for giving it. It was a statement in regard to all of our influences, for yes, as you say, our understanding of Scripture is influenced by what has formed our reasoning. Yet, it is still the yardstick by which our reasoning or influences must be judged.

I am alongside and not opposed to you in this regard. I too simply want to know the truth concerning this matter.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Click to expand...

Hi Chris,

I wasnt implying anything about your intentions. I was mainly pointing out that I don't hold David Bercot as authoritative. I don't really hold anyone, other than the writers of Scripture as authoritative. Even the best scholars can be wrong. They too are subject to their preconceptions. I've seen some of the "greatest minds" say things that were flatly refuted by Scripture.

I think one of the issues we deal with is that we live in a time and culture that is vastly different than those who lived in Bible times. When we read the Scriptures, it's with a 21st century western mindset. We're reading a book written with an Eastern mindset. It's a completely different culture. That's why I believe studying the historical setting is important. That way it helps us understand things from their perspective rather than trying to understand them from our modern perspective.

Butch5 said:

I think one of the issues we deal with is that we live in a time and culture that is vastly different than those who lived in Bible times. When we read the Scriptures, it's with a 21st century western mindset. We're reading a book written with an Eastern mindset. It's a completely different culture. That's why I believe studying the historical setting is important. That way it helps us understand things from their perspective rather than trying to understand them from our modern perspective.

Click to expand...

Society changes yes. God never does. Society doesn't set the rules about morality (they think they do). God does.

B-A-C said:

Society changes yes. God never does. Society doesn't set the rules about morality (they think they do). God does.

Click to expand...

I agree. However, cultures change and what something means in one culture can be different in another. If we don't understand the New Testament the way 1st century Christians did, then there's a good possibility that we could be wrong. Take the way gay. It meant something completely different 100 years ago. If we're reading a book written 100 years ago and use the modern understanding of the word gay, we're likely to misunderstand what the author means.

Personally, I think this is one of the biggest reasons Christians misunderstand the Bible.

Butch5 said:

One of the biggest issues with the satisfaction/Penal models of the atonement is that they make man the enemy of God rather than the Devil. Under these models the Devil really plays no role in anything. He's really just a secondary character in the battle between God and man.

Click to expand...

Rom 3:23; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Rom 6:23; For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Isa 53:9; His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.
Isa 53:10; But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.
Isa 53:11; As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities.
Isa 53:12; Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors.

Heb 9:11; But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation;
Heb 9:12; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
Heb 9:13; For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh,
Heb 9:14; how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Heb 9:15; For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Heb 9:16; For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it.
Heb 9:17; For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.
Heb 9:18; Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood.
Heb 9:19; For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people,
Heb 9:20; saying, "THIS IS THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT WHICH GOD COMMANDED YOU."
Heb 9:21; And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood.
Heb 9:22; And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
Heb 9:23; Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

Man in his fallen nature 'IS' the enemy of God. Our flesh is perfectly capable of sinning, even without Satan's help.

Rom 5:10; For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

The unsaved still belong to Satan. (I know you believe in universal redemption, but there are too many scriptures against it)
(Most of/all of? )The unsaved don't realize they are under the control of Satan. They have no power no overcome sin within themselves. Even if they could eventually overcome sin on their own, there would be no way
to have all their previous sins paid for on their own.

Satan will eventually get what's coming to him. The tempter, the accuser of the brethren.
But Satan has no power over Christians (true believers). He cannot make us sin. EVery single time we sin, it's because we choose to sin. It's our choice to sin or not to sin.
So ultimately from that perspective, (as far as Christians are concerned) Satan is a secondary player. In the end, we ourselves are responsible for our choices.

Back in the 70's there was a comedian (Flip Wilson) who was famous for saying "The devil made me do it". But the Devil can't make any believer do anything.

B-A-C said:

the Devil can't make any believer do anything.

Click to expand...

True, but "Temptation" begins with OUR LUST (believer or otherwise) and satan provides the "enticement". It's the believer's responsibility to NOT let their own LUST "Conceive" - because when it does, SINFUL ACTIONS are the result. (James 1)

Butch5 said:

Hi Chris,

Let me challenge one of your preconceptions. Can we establish from Scripture that God's Justice "demands" atonement?

Yes Christ is the mediator between God and man. He has ransomed, or bought back mankind, thus He can be the mediator between God and man.

One of the biggest issues with the satisfaction/Penal models of the atonement is that they make man the enemy of God rather than the Devil. Under these models the Devil really plays no role in anything. He's really just a secondary character in the battle between God and man. In the Ransom model the Devil is a primary player. In the ransom model there is a battle between God and the Devil over the the future of man kind. Why did the Devil tempt Eve in the garden? Why did the Devil seek to test Job?

Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the LORD. And the LORD said to Satan, “From where have you come?” Satan answered the LORD and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.” And the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil? He still holds fast his integrity, although you incited me against him to destroy him without reason.” Then Satan answered the LORD and said, “Skin for skin! All that a man has he will give for his life. But stretch out your hand and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse you to your face.” And the LORD said to Satan, “Behold, he is in your hand; only spare his life.”

Click to expand...

Hi @Butch5,

I have listened to the discourse on the link. There are things I find myself in agreement with, and other things that I am not in agreement with. Quite honestly, after listening to this, I am inclined to throw both theories out of the window, and cling to Christ for all that I am worth.

I will not engage with you on this at the moment for I have chores to do, perhaps I will do so later, but I am not at all sure that it will serve any purpose for me to say what I believe to you, or for you to say what you believe to me.

Oh for the simplicity that is in Christ Jesus!

Thank you, Butch5,
Within the love of Christ our Saviour,
Our Lord and Head.
Chris

B-A-C said:

Rom 3:23; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Rom 6:23; For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Isa 53:9; His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.
Isa 53:10; But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.
Isa 53:11; As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities.
Isa 53:12; Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors.

Heb 9:11; But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation;
Heb 9:12; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
Heb 9:13; For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh,
Heb 9:14; how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Heb 9:15; For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Heb 9:16; For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it.
Heb 9:17; For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.
Heb 9:18; Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood.
Heb 9:19; For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people,
Heb 9:20; saying, "THIS IS THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT WHICH GOD COMMANDED YOU."
Heb 9:21; And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood.
Heb 9:22; And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
Heb 9:23; Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

Man in his fallen nature 'IS' the enemy of God. Our flesh is perfectly capable of sinning, even without Satan's help.

Rom 5:10; For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

The unsaved still belong to Satan. (I know you believe in universal redemption, but there are too many scriptures against it)
(Most of/all of? )The unsaved don't realize they are under the control of Satan. They have no power no overcome sin within themselves. Even if they could eventually overcome sin on their own, there would be no way
to have all their previous sins paid for on their own.

Satan will eventually get what's coming to him. The tempter, the accuser of the brethren.
But Satan has no power over Christians (true believers). He cannot make us sin. EVery single time we sin, it's because we choose to sin. It's our choice to sin or not to sin.
So ultimately from that perspective, (as far as Christians are concerned) Satan is a secondary player. In the end, we ourselves are responsible for our choices.

Back in the 70's there was a comedian (Flip Wilson) who was famous for saying "The devil made me do it". But the Devil can't make any believer do anything.

Click to expand...

Hi B-A-C

First let me clarify, I don't believe in Universalism.

Also, again, the Ransom theory was the original understanding. We have to wonder how this can be, if in fact the Penal model is correct. We have to wonder how all of those taught by the apostles beleived this if it was wrong. How did one guy 1000 years later figure it out?

complete said:

Hi @Butch5,

I have listened to the discourse on the link. There are things I find myself in agreement with, and other things that I am not in agreement with. Quite honestly, after listening to this, I am inclined to throw both theories out of the window, and cling to Christ for all that I am worth.

I will not engage with you on this at the moment for I have chores to do, perhaps I will do so later, but I am not at all sure that it will serve any purpose for me to say what I believe to you, or for you to say what you believe to me.

Oh for the simplicity that is in Christ Jesus!

Thank you, Butch5,
Within the love of Christ our Saviour,
Our Lord and Head.
Chris

Click to expand...

Hi Chris,

Thanks for taking the time to listen. I'd encourage you to look more deeply into the Ransom theory. I think if you do you'll find that it fits much better with Scripture and it present a much more loving God.

As I see it, the Ransom theory presents a God who loves His is creation so much, that He allowed His only begotten Son to give Himself as a ransom to buy back His creation as opposed to the Penal model which presents an angry god that demands his wrath be satified

Butch5 said:

Also, again, the Ransom theory was the original understanding. We have to wonder how this can be, if in fact the Penal model is correct.

Click to expand...

The ransom is for the believers who repent. The penalty is for the unbelievers and those who continue in sin.

Matt 20:28; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
Mark 10:45; "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
1Tim 2:6; who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

Isa 50:2; "Why was there no man when I came? When I called, why was there none to answer? Is My hand so short that it cannot ransom? Or have I no power to deliver? Behold, I dry up the sea with My rebuke, I make the rivers a wilderness; Their fish stink for lack of water And die of thirst.
Hos 13:14; Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol? Shall I redeem them from death? O Death, where are your thorns? O Sheol, where is your sting? Compassion will be hidden from My sight.

B-A-C said:

The ransom is for the believers who repent. The penalty is for the unbelievers and those who continue in sin.

Matt 20:28; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
Mark 10:45; "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
1Tim 2:6; who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

Click to expand...

That's not how the theory works. In the Ransome theory all mankind is ransomed.

Butch5 said:

That's not how the theory works. In the Ransome theory all mankind is ransomed.

Click to expand...

So we are back to Universalism.