The dreaded "works" doctrine.

[Butch5]

Hello @Butch5,

I will simply praise God that He has accomplished salvation through the person and work of His only Begotten Son, that we, through simple faith in Him, may be delivered from the power of sin, which is death. For it cannot hold us. We will be raised to life again by the operation of the power of God. Praise His Holy Name!

If I try, by my own understanding, to explain what is written concerning the various aspects of this wondrous work, expressed in such words as, 'atonement', 'redemption,' 'Justification', 'sanctification' etc., I will mar the beauty and wonder of the glory of God. So, I will simply receive His word by faith, and trust Him to fulfill His promises, in and through Christ Jesus, in Whom I live and move and have my being.

As for man's theories and man's opinion, including my own, I will not give them houseroom.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Hi Chris,

Let me just clarify. When I say Ransom theory, I don't mean it's an idea that someone thinks might be true. We also use theory in a scientific sense. I'm not suggesting that the ransom theory is just one of many. I believe its what was taught to the early Christians which is why the earliest held this understanding

 

[Butch5]

Hello @Butch5,

The context plays a big part in the tone of these words. It you read Leviticus 1:4 for example when the instruction was first given, and references within Exodus, then you will see it's purpose.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Hi Chris,

I agree context plays an important role. Probably the most important. My question is, did these sacrifices appease or satisfy God? The Penal model says that man has sinned against God and that God's wrath towards man must be appeased. Personally, I find that idea far too close to what the pagans did. They sacrificed human beings to appease the wrath of their gods. What does the Penal model have? A human sacrifice to appease God's wrath. God expressed great condemnation of this practice.

Regarding Leviticus 1:4, did it appease God's wrath, or was it a symbol? Paul said the blood of sheep and goats could never take away sin. That suggests to me that it was a symbol.

Paul tells us in Galatians that the Law was a tutor for Israel to bring them to Christ.

But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

 

[complete]

Hi Chris,

Let me just clarify. When I say Ransom theory, I don't mean it's an idea that someone thinks might be true. We also use theory in a scientific sense. I'm not suggesting that the ransom theory is just one of many. I believe its what was taught to the early Christians which is why the earliest held this understanding

Hello @Butch5,

With respect, you have brought forward two schools of thought for comparison.

I do not wish to be in the position of choosing between either, for I am fallible.

Thank you.
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[complete]

Hi Chris,

Let me just clarify. When I say Ransom theory, I don't mean it's an idea that someone thinks might be true. We also use theory in a scientific sense. I'm not suggesting that the ransom theory is just one of many. I believe its what was taught to the early Christians which is why the earliest held this understanding

Hello @Butch5,

Looking at what the early Christians believed and did is not the yardstick we should use to govern either our doctrine or our practice: because even in that early church there was apostacy. Paul said to Timothy that 'all in Asia', which would have encompassed such assemblies as those to whom Paul wrote his later epistles, had turned away from him: and turning away from Paul meant turning away from what he had taught also. This is why Paul exhorted Timothy to hold fast the form of sound words which he had received from Paul, and to guard that good deposit of truth.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Butch5]

Hello @Butch5,

Looking at what the early Christians believed and did is not the yardstick we should use to govern either our doctrine or our practice: because even in that early church there was apostacy. Paul said to Timothy that 'all in Asia', which would have encompassed such assemblies as those to whom Paul wrote his later epistles, had turned away from him: and turning away from Paul meant turning away from what he had taught also. This is why Paul exhorted Timothy to hold fast the form of sound words which he had received from Paul, and to guard that good deposit of truth.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

HI Chris,

When he said, all, was he using hyperbole? Did literally every single person in Asia turn away?

But, that's not the point. When you speak of a yardstick by which to measure doctrine, what is it? Is it your understanding? My understanding? Some commentator's understanding?

Who would probably have a better understanding of what was originally taught, us or someone who was taught by the apostle John? I think we can agree that someone who was taught by John would probably have a better understanding. So, why wouldn't we listen to them and take into account what they were taught?

I agree there was apostacy. However, there is apostacy today too. People read commentaries and accept what they said without having any knowledge of the author. What about translations? What do you know about those who translated your preferred translation? What did/do they believe? Did they remain a Christian?

My point is, that to just reject the early Christians because apostacy existed isn't valid. Christians all through history have faced that same thing.

 

[complete]

HI Chris,

When he said, all, was he using hyperbole? Did literally every single person in Asia turn away?

But, that's not the point. When you speak of a yardstick by which to measure doctrine, what is it? Is it your understanding? My understanding? Some commentator's understanding?

Who would probably have a better understanding of what was originally taught, us or someone who was taught by the apostle John? I think we can agree that someone who was taught by John would probably have a better understanding. So, why wouldn't we listen to them and take into account what they were taught?

I agree there was apostacy. However, there is apostacy today too. People read commentaries and accept what they said without having any knowledge of the author. What about translations? What do you know about those who translated your preferred translation? What did/do they believe? Did they remain a Christian?

My point is, that to just reject the early Christians because apostacy existed isn't valid. Christians all through history have faced that same thing.

Hello @Butch5,

I would say to embrace a theory which existed within the early church, without making sure of it's Scriptural basis would be folly. Also in regard to what our yardstick should be, it should be the Word of God, and only the word of God, without any input from man in any form.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Butch5]

Hello @Butch5,

I would say to embrace a theory which existed within the early church, without making sure of it's Scriptural basis would be folly. Also in regard to what our yardstick should be, it should be the Word of God, and only the word of God, without any input from man in any form.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Hi Chris,

The theory isn't without Scriptural basis. I would argue that the Satisfaction/Penal models are. As I pointed out they run contrary to what we see in Scripture and what we see in reality. The wages of sin is death. Christian's die for their sins. How did Christ pay that? Likewise, if the debt is paid, it's not forgiven. Yet in Scripture we find that sins are forgiven, not paid for. The Satisfaction/Penal models have it backwards.

You say the yardstick should be the Scriotures without any input from man. Well, that doesnt happen. You're reading a translation. That's input from man. Your translation is subject to the beliefs and understanding of the translator. Your translation is coming from copies of the originals, that involved men. Your filtering the Scriptures through your own understanding, that involves a woman. Unless the Bible could speak or God literally explained it to all of us we are relying on men.

That being said, I go back to, whose understanding of the Scriptures do we use for the yardstick? Everyone who reads the Scriotures is filtering them through the mind, that means man/woman. We all have different beliefs about the world and those beliefs affect how we see things. Two scientists look at the same evidence, one says isn't God amazing? The other says isn't evolution amazing? It's the same evidence. The difference is the preconceptions or worldview we bring to that evidence. The evidence doesn't speak, it's there to interpret. How it is interpreted is governed by the preconceptions and worldview of the interpreter.

 

[complete]

Hi Chris,

The theory isn't without Scriptural basis. I would argue that the Satisfaction/Penal models are. As I pointed out they run contrary to what we see in Scripture and what we see in reality. The wages of sin is death. Christian's die for their sins. How did Christ pay that? Likewise, if the debt is paid, it's not forgiven. Yet in Scripture we find that sins are forgiven, not paid for. The Satisfaction/Penal models have it backwards.

You say the yardstick should be the Scriptures without any input from man. Well, that doesn't happen. You're reading a translation. That's input from man. Your translation is subject to the beliefs and understanding of the translator. Your translation is coming from copies of the originals, that involved men. Your filtering the Scriptures through your own understanding, that involves a woman. Unless the Bible could speak or God literally explained it to all of us we are relying on men.

That being said, I go back to, whose understanding of the Scriptures do we use for the yardstick? Everyone who reads the Scriotures is filtering them through the mind, that means man/woman. We all have different beliefs about the world and those beliefs affect how we see things. Two scientists look at the same evidence, one says isn't God amazing? The other says isn't evolution amazing? It's the same evidence. The difference is the preconceptions or worldview we bring to that evidence. The evidence doesn't speak, it's there to interpret. How it is interpreted is governed by the preconceptions and worldview of the interpreter.

Hello @Butch5,

Forgive me, but I dispute what you say: For the Word of God is not subject to the vagaries of translation, it transcends that. For by comparing Scripture with Scripture, and letting it alone be instrumental in giving meaning to the words used, regardless of concordance definition, the meaning can be sealed by the way the Holy Spirit has used it.

God has preserved His Word, and it can be trusted to give us God's council, and reveal His will and purpose. So I don't give a fig for man's theories, or those who compiled them, for God is sovereign.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Butch5]

Hello @Butch5,

Forgive me, but I dispute what you say: For the Word of God is not subject to the vagaries of translation, it transcends that. For by comparing Scripture with Scripture, and letting it alone be instrumental in giving meaning to the words used, regardless of concordance definition, the meaning can be sealed by the way the Holy Spirit has used it.

God has preserved His Word, and it can be trusted to give us God's council, and reveal His will and purpose. So I don't give a fig for man's theories, or those who compiled them, for God is sovereign.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Hi Chris,

Ok, however, in doing so you undermine everything you say

 

[complete]

Hi Chris,

Ok, however, in doing so you undermine everything you say

Hello @Butch5,

I don't understand. What is it that in doing I undermine what I have said?

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Butch5]

Hello @Butch5,

I don't understand. What is it that in doing I undermine what I have said?

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Hi Chris,

If we dispense with the theories and ideas of men, we have to dispense with our own theories and ideas. After all, they too, come from the human mind. When we compare Scrioture to Scripture as you said, we are using the human mind. All of this requires the input of man/woman.

If you accept the idea of Penal Atonement, how do you justify it? It's a theory of man. There is nothing in the Bible that tells us that we can pay for our sins. The Bible did give Israel a way atone for their sins and make them right with God. However, the sin was still there. It wasn't taken away. Paul tells us that clearly. The Bible actually says that a man can't pay for the sins of his brother.

As I've pointed out, Penal Atonement is a Reformation teaching. It's a theory that started in the 1500's.

 

[B-A-C]

The Bible actually says that a man can't pay for the sins of his brother.

No, but God can.

Psa 49:7; No one can by any means redeem another Or give God a ransom for him—
Psa 49:8; For the redemption of his soul is priceless, And he should cease imagining forever—

Psa 49:15; But God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol, For He will receive me. Selah

 

[complete]

Hi Chris,

If we dispense with the theories and ideas of men, we have to dispense with our own theories and ideas. After all, they too, come from the human mind. When we compare Scripture to Scripture as you said, we are using the human mind. All of this requires the input of man/woman.

If you accept the idea of Penal Atonement, how do you justify it? It's a theory of man. There is nothing in the Bible that tells us that we can pay for our sins. The Bible did give Israel a way atone for their sins and make them right with God. However, the sin was still there. It wasn't taken away. Paul tells us that clearly. The Bible actually says that a man can't pay for the sins of his brother.

As I've pointed out, Penal Atonement is a Reformation teaching. It's a theory that started in the 1500's.

' Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.
For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son,
much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
by whom we have now received the atonement.'
(Rom 5:9-11)

Hello @Butch5,

Yes I will willingly put all of my understanding down on the scales and measure it against the Word of God, for only then will I know if it is true of false. However when comparing Scripture with Scripture the human mind does not come into play: For it provides it's own evidence.

You say that there is nothing in the Bible that tells us that we can pay for our sins, and that is correct: 'We can't; but Christ could because He Himself was sinless, and so death had no claim upon Him, therefore He could bare our sin upon Himself and pay it's penalty. It is against God, and against Him alone that we have sinned. It is His glory that mankind has fallen short of: so It is to Him that atonement is required to be made.

'Have mercy upon me, O God, according to Thy lovingkindness:
according unto the multitude of Thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.
Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in Thy sight:
that Thou mightest be justified when Thou speakest,
and be clear when Thou judgest.'
(Psalm 51:1-4)

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Butch5]

No, but God can.

Psa 49:7; No one can by any means redeem another Or give God a ransom for him—
Psa 49:8; For the redemption of his soul is priceless, And he should cease imagining forever—

Psa 49:15; But God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol, For He will receive me. Selah

Hi B-A-C,
God can redeem man's soul. He did. But, what you've posted says nothing about sins or sins being paid for.

 

[complete]

'Wherefore He is able also -
to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him,
seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them.
For such an high priest became us, Who is holy, harmless, undefiled,
separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice,
first for his own sins, and then for the people's:
for this He did once, when He offered up Himself.
For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity;
but the word of the oath, which was since the law,
maketh the Son, Who is consecrated for evermore.
(Heb 7:25-28)

Hello @Butch5,

This clearly says that the Lord Jesus offered up Himself, not for His own sins, for He has none, but for the sins of the people, a sin offering once for all.

As Kinsman-Redeemer, He was able to atone for His own, to pay the redemption price for sin, to deliver them from death.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Butch5]

'Wherefore He is able also -
to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him,
seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them.
For such an high priest became us, Who is holy, harmless, undefiled,
separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice,
first for his own sins, and then for the people's:
for this He did once, when He offered up Himself.
For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity;
but the word of the oath, which was since the law,
maketh the Son, Who is consecrated for evermore.
(Heb 7:25-28)

Hello @Butch5,

This clearly says that the Lord Jesus offered up Himself, not for His own sins, for He has none, but for the sins of the people, a sin offering once for all.

As Kinsman-Redeemer.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Hi Chris,

Yes, it does. But, does it say he was a "payment" for sins? Or, could this understood differently?

 

[complete]

Hi Chris,

Yes, it does. But, does it say He was a "payment" for sins? Or, could this understood differently?

Hello @Butch5,

'None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:
(For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for evermore )'
(Psa 49:7)

'I will ransom them from the power of the grave;
I will redeem them from death:
O death, I will be thy plagues;
O grave, I will be thy destruction:
repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.'
(Hos 13:14)

'So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption,
and this mortal shall have put on immortality,
then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written,
Death is swallowed up in victory.
O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.'
(1Co 15:54-57)

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[complete]

Hello @Butch5,

' And he brought the people's offering,
and took the goat,
which was the sin offering for the people,
and slew it,
and offered it for sin,
as the first.'
(Lev 9:15)

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[complete]

Hello @Butch5,

'And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Speak unto the children of Israel,
When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit,
to do a trespass against the LORD, and that person be guilty;
Then they shall confess their sin which they have done:
and he shall recompense his trespass with the principal thereof,
and add unto it the fifth part thereof,
and give it unto him against whom he hath trespassed.
But if the man have no kinsman to recompense the trespass unto,
let the trespass be recompensed unto the LORD, even to the priest;
beside the ram of the atonement,
whereby an atonement shall be made for him.'
(Num 5:5-7)

The Lord is our Kinsman-Redeemer - Praise His Name!

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Butch5]

Hello @Butch5,

'And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Speak unto the children of Israel,
When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit,
to do a trespass against the LORD, and that person be guilty;
Then they shall confess their sin which they have done:
and he shall recompense his trespass with the principal thereof,
and add unto it the fifth part thereof,
and give it unto him against whom he hath trespassed.
But if the man have no kinsman to recompense the trespass unto,
let the trespass be recompensed unto the LORD, even to the priest;
beside the ram of the atonement,
whereby an atonement shall be made for him.'
(Num 5:5-7)

The Lord is our Kinsman-Redeemer - Praise His Name!

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Hi Chris, it's interesting that you're using statutes that were given to Israel. Again, Paul said those things could not take away sins. No matter what they did, it didnt take away their sins. He said the Law was a tutor for Israel until the promised Seed should come.

Again, this goes back to interpretation. Can this be understood differently than the way you're understanding it? All of these passages fit the Ransome model.

We haven't even established if one can pay God for their sins. Can you show me where God says a man can pay to have his sins remitted?