Sacrifice for sin

[shawn]

I have always believed that God needed "payment" for sin.  There is a debt incurred when we sin.  While I believe this to be true but do not know where I got that Biblically.  Any verses that support that notion of debt?  Hebrews has a bit of a different take on why worshippers need sacrifice for sin.

Hebrews 9:9

9 This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.

Hebrews 10:2-4

2 Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. 4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.


It appears that the author of Hebrews (Barnabas?) is saying the payment needs to be made to clear our consciences.  With clear consciences, we can come before the Lord and worship. 

Any other takes?

[jabcat]

I think it's very much the former (payment/justification) though I don't fully understand it.  I will post them later, but in my opinion, there are irrefutable scriptures that state such, i.e., the payment, the ransom, etc. that He paid for us.  I know there are those that attempt to dispute that, but IMO, they're having to dishonestly manipulate scripture to do so - perhaps because something else "makes sense" to our natural mind.  But again, there are clear scriptures about this, that use definitive words and wording. 

As far as the clear conscience, unless we are in relationship with Him, we don't have that - so He did the above to bring us into that relationship, so we could have that clear conscience before Him.  My  :2c:.

[shawn]

I think it's very much the former (payment/justification) though I don't fully understand it.  I will post them later, but in my opinion, there are irrefutable scriptures that state such, i.e., the payment, the ransom, etc. that He paid for us.  I know there are those that attempt to dispute that, but IMO, they're having to dishonestly manipulate scripture to do so - perhaps because something else "makes sense" to our natural mind.  But again, there are clear scriptures about this, that use definitive words and wording. 

As far as the clear conscience, unless we are in relationship with Him, we don't have that - so He did the above to bring us into that relationship, so we could have that clear conscience before Him.  My  :2c:.

Thank you for that.  That sounds right to me.  We have guilty consciences because we owe a debt which we can not pay to God Almighty.  Jesus resolved that debt and cleared not only the debt of but the consciences of the believer. 

[jabcat]

Good, thank you, God bless you.  Since some earlier discussions about this topic, I've paid special attention to certain scrips about this as I've read, and I'll post them later when I get to work.  Even in the most literal translation, they very clearly and strongly state there was a debt/payment/ransom/sacrifice, Him taking our place. 

God bless.

[jabcat]

Attempting to get the jump on detractors  :laughing7:.

I also believe there are many other things involved in Jesus' death - showing us perfect love, showing us the ultimate example of obedience, bringing multiple types of victory, etc., etc.

[Molly]

1 Timothy 2:6
Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.


"ransom"

G487
ἀντίλυτρον
antilutron
an-til'-oo-tron
From G473 and G3083; a redemption price: - ransom.


But, I had always thought the ransom was paid to Satan [not to complicate matters lol]. :dontknow:


"ransom"

money demanded for the return of a captured person
payment for the release of someone
exchange or buy back for money; under threat
the act of freeing from captivity or punishment

[jabcat]

That's one of the strong scrips, Mol.  And yes, you've taken a fork in the road LOL

[Molly]

Interesting, Origen is popping up again in the fork. :happygrin:


Ransom theory of atonement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The ransom view of the atonement,[1] is one of several doctrines in Christian theology related to the meaning and effect of the death of Jesus Christ. The first major theory of the atonement, it originated in the early Church, particularly in the work of Origen. The theory teaches that the death of Christ was a ransom, usually said to have been paid to Satan, in satisfaction of his just claim on the souls of humanity as a result of sin. Christian philosopher Robin Collins summarized it as follows:

Essentially, this theory claimed that Adam and Eve sold humanity over to the Devil at the time of the Fall; hence, justice required that grace pay the Devil a ransom to free us from the Devil's clutches. God, however, tricked the Devil into accepting Christ's death as a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death. Once the Devil accepted Christ's death as a ransom, this theory concluded, justice was satisfied and God was able to free us from Satan's grip.[2]

"Redeeming" in this case literally means "buying back," and the ransoming of war captives from slavery was a common practice in the era. The theory was also based in part on Mark 10:45: "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many"; and 1 Timothy 2:5-6: "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time". The ransom theory was the main view of atonement through the first thousand years of Christian history, though it was never made a required belief.[2] There were some who held different positions, however. The commentary on Romans attributed to Pelagius (who was declared a heretic, though for his view of grace, not his view of atonement) gives a description of the atonement which states that a person's sins have "sold them to death," and not to the devil, and that these sins alienate them from God, until Jesus, dying, ransomed people from death.[3] The orthodox St. Athanasius proposed a theory of the atonement which similarly states that God wills for sin to lead to death, and so, to remain consistent with Himself must have Jesus die for sins, or have humankind die. This has some similarity to the Satisfaction view, although St. Athanasius emphasized the fact that this death is effective because of our unity with Christ, rather than emphasizing a legal substitution.[4]

St. Anselm, the 11th century Archbishop of Canterbury argued against the ransom view, saying that Satan, being himself a rebel and outlaw, could never have a just claim against humans.[2] The Catholic Encyclopedia calls the idea that God must pay the Devil a ransom "certainly startling, if not revolting."[5] Philosopher and theologian Keith Ward, among others, pointed out that, under the ransom view, not only was God a debtor but a deceiver as well, since God only pretended to pay the debt.

Others, such as Gustaf Aulén, have suggested that the meaning of the Ransom theory should not be taken in terms of a business transaction (who gets paid), but rather understood as a liberation of human beings from the bondage of sin and death. Aulén's book, Christus Victor, maintained that the Early Church view had been mischaracterized, and proposed a reevaluated Ransom Theory as a superior alternative to Satisfaction Theory.

Anselm himself went on to explicate the satisfaction view of atonement.

Today, the ransom view of atonement is not widely accepted in the West, except by some Anabaptist peace churches and a few theologians in the Word of Faith movement. The Eastern Orthodox Church holds a position which is in some ways similar to it. However, the Orthodox do not have a fully dogmatic view of the atonement. They hold that Christ became Incarnate to restore the Image of God in humanity and to defeat death and sin in the flesh. However, while St. Gregory of Nyssa taught a view similar to the Ransom position, others, such as St. Gregory the Theologian, vigorously denied that Christ was a ransom to the devil.[6] A catechism of the Orthodox Church in America states:

In Orthodox theology generally it can be said that the language of 'payment' and 'ransom' is rather understood as a metaphorical and symbolical way of saying that Christ has done all things necessary to save and redeem mankind enslaved to the devil, sin and death, and under the wrath of God. He 'paid the price, not in some legalistic or juridical or economic meaning. He "paid the price" not to the devil whose rights over man were won by deceit and tyranny. He 'paid the price' not to God the Father in the sense that God delights in His sufferings and received 'satisfaction' from His creatures in Him. He 'paid the price' rather, we might say, to Reality Itself. He 'paid the price' to create the conditions in and through which man might receive the forgiveness of sins and eternal life by dying and rising again in Him to newness of life. (See Romans 5:8 and Galatians 2:4
By dying on the cross and rising from the dead, Jesus Christ cleansed the world from evil and sin. He defeated the devil 'in his own territory' and on 'his own terms.' The 'wages of sin is death'.Romans 6:23 So the Son of God became man and took upon Himself the sins of the world and died a voluntary death. By His sinless and innocent death accomplished entirely by His free will—and not by physical, moral, or juridical necessity—He made death to die and to become itself the source and the way into life eternal."[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ransom_theory_of_atonement

[shawn]

Certainly didn't want to stir up a hornets nest. 

[WhiteWings]

I think it's very much the former (payment/justification) though I don't fully understand it.  I will post them later, but in my opinion, there are irrefutable scriptures that state such, i.e., the payment, the ransom, etc. that He paid for us.  I know there are those that attempt to dispute that, but IMO, they're having to dishonestly manipulate scripture to do so - perhaps because something else "makes sense" to our natural mind.  But again, there are clear scriptures about this, that use definitive words and wording. 

As far as the clear conscience, unless we are in relationship with Him, we don't have that - so He did the above to bring us into that relationship, so we could have that clear conscience before Him.  My  :2c:.

PN asked a very similar question a few days back.
I think to be able to fully answer Shawn's questions a very important part to consider is: WHAT did Jesus pay for?
By "what" I don't mean sin. That's clear.
Scripture is clear about the payment. But also about correction. So the payments doesn't make the Judge ignore all bad things. -> correction.
I think that knowledge is also needed to fight Jabcat's detractors.

[micah7:9]

Justified:G1344
dikaioō
From G1342; to render (that is, show or regard as) just or innocent: - free, justify (-ier), be righteous.
G1342
dikaios
From G1349; equitable (in character or act); by implication innocent, holy (absolutely or relatively): - just, meet, right (-eous).
Thayer Definition:
1) to render righteous or such he ought to be
2) to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3) to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be

[WhiteWings]

Hi Micah,

A very clear post.
A question for you. (and others)
Jeus paid for all sin. Does that mean for example Hitler goes straight to heaven without even mentioning he did something wrong? What's the use of judgement if the only verdict the judge speaks is "not guilty"?

[shawn]

Since looking into UR, I have begun to question all I have been taught.  I search out through scripture to evaluate for truth doctrine I had been taught.

I had never been taught that Jesus was a a ransom to the devil.  That thought raises the hairs on my arm.  It has no ring of truth within it.  What I have understood is that God is not only agape love, but also just.  Our God who is holy and just requires payment...sin=death or he wouldn't be just.  If he allowed sin to go without payment that would not be justice.  Since none of us could pay the debt owed he sent Jesus, the perfect sacrifice to pay our debt for us so that we could be restored to relationship.  I was just wanting some scripture to support that...so I know why I believe what I believe.  Off the top of my head, I don't remember exactly where it speaks of this.

What Hebrews did for me was confirm what I had felt in my spirit...that by the debt being paid in full...our consciences can be cleared of our guilt...so we may serve God and find relationship.

That is how I understand it today. 

[jabcat]

Since looking into UR, I have begun to question all I have been taught.  I search out through scripture to evaluate for truth doctrine I had been taught.

I had never been taught that Jesus was a a ransom to the devil.  That thought raises the hairs on my arm.  It has no ring of truth within it.  What I have understood is that God is not only agape love, but also just.  Our God who is holy and just requires payment...sin=death or he wouldn't be just.  If he allowed sin to go without payment that would not be justice.  Since none of us could pay the debt owed he sent Jesus, the perfect sacrifice to pay our debt for us so that we could be restored to relationship.  I was just wanting some scripture to support that...so I know why I believe what I believe.  Off the top of my head, I don't remember exactly where it speaks of this.

What Hebrews did for me was confirm what I had felt in my spirit...that by the debt being paid in full...our consciences can be cleared of our guilt...so we may serve God and find relationship.

That is how I understand it today. 

Amen.  I agree.

Now, there are other related, "fork" issues;  who to and  what the ransom entailed, what exactly does "it is finished"/ransomed paid in full mean (punishment or not) etc.     They're all good discussions and go together, I just think it's important to recognize these are related, yet distinctive topics.   :2c:

[jabcat]

Literal translation, Christian Bible

Col. 1:13,14...His dearly loved Son, in whom we are going to have our liberation by His payment of the ransom and the forgiveness of the things we have done that are wrong.

[jabcat]

You too were sealed [secured] with the promised Pure Spirit, which is the down payment of our inheritance, so that we whom He has purchased, might have our liberation by His payment of the ransom, and praise His glory for it.  Eph. 1:13,14

Hosea 13:14: "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!"
There is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." 1 Tim. 2:5,6

Interesting piece of discussion from biblestudents.com;

We have seen clearly that the penalty or sentence against mankind was not eternal torture, but, as plainly and distinctly stated by the Creator to Adam, it was death. To suppose that it was any other penalty than death would be to suppose that God had dealt dishonestly with Adam and Eve in Eden--that he misinformed and deceived them. We have seen that a death sentence is a just sentence against sin--that life being a conditional grant, the Creator had full right to revoke it: but it requires no particular ability of mind to discern that an eternity of torture for Father Adam would not have been a just penalty for his partaking of the forbidden fruit--even attaching to that act of disobedience all the culpability of wilfulness and intelligence that can be imagined; much more, it would not have been just to have permitted such a sentence of eternal torture to be entailed upon the countless millions of Adam's posterity. But the death sentence, with all its terrible concomitants of sickness and pain and trouble, which came upon Father Adam, and which descended naturally through him to his offspring (inasmuch as an impure fountain cannot send forth a pure stream), all can see to be both reasonable and just--a sentence before which all mouths must be stopped; all must admit its justice--the goodness and the severity of God.

Knowing definitely the penalty pronounced against sin, we may easily see what Justice must require as a payment of that penalty, ere the "curse" could be lifted and the culprit be released from the great prison-house of death. (Isa. 61:1) As it was not because the entire race sinned that the sentence came, but because one man sinned, so that sentence of death fell directly upon Adam only, and only indirectly through him upon his race, by heredity--and in full accord with these facts Justice may demand only a corresponding price--Justice must, therefore, demand the life of another as [E423] instead of the life of Adam, before releasing Adam and his race. And if this penalty were paid, the whole penalty would be paid--one sacrifice for all, even as one sin involved all. We have already seen that the perfect Adam, the transgressor, who was sentenced, was not an angel, nor an archangel, nor a god, but a man--in nature a little lower than that of angels. Strictest Justice, therefore, could demand as his substitute neither more nor less than one of Adam's own kind, under similar conditions to his, namely, perfect, and free from divine condemnation. We have seen that none such could be found amongst men, all of whom were of the race of Adam, and therefore sharers, through heredity, of his penalty and degradation. Hence it was, that the necessity arose that one from the heavenly courts, and of a spiritual nature, should take upon him the human nature, and then give as substitute, himself, a ransom for Adam and for all who lost life through him.

[shawn]

That is a terrific article and probably the best I have read on the subject.

[jabcat]

 :thumbsup:  I really liked it too.

[Molly]

Ransom has a very specific meaning.  Should we ignore the meaning?  It is a payment paid to one who is holding another hostage in order to get him to release the hostage.

Could it mean anything else?



Ephesians 4:8
8Therefore it says,

    "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,
   and he gave gifts to men."

[Nathan]

Hi Micah,

A very clear post.
A question for you. (and others)
Jeus paid for all sin. Does that mean for example Hitler goes straight to heaven without even mentioning he did something wrong? What's the use of judgement if the only verdict the judge speaks is "not guilty"?

As one of the "others' I'll jump in on this one . . .
This question you pose WW is one that is a challenge for just about every living, breathing individual to accept.  The reason I see that to be, is because we believe in justice.  We believe that when someone takes away from another, justice needs to step in and the one with loss should be reimbursed and the one who did the taking should be punished.  That's common logic.  It works in society quite well when there are no hidden agendas or political incentives behind the scenes taking place.

So when it comes to Spiritual issues, we assume it would only stand to reason that we would apply the same logic.  BUT . . . WE . . CAN'T.  We can't apply natural reasoning to spiritual principles.  I've soap-boxed this before.  But I think it's a huge, HUGE, deal that can't be emphasized enough.  Using the logic of my extremely limited mind with the boundless, unimaginable spiritual principles that govern and have dominon and authority over "this" realm is the repeatable crime that the mainline church does on a daily basis.

I would think if "anyone" could grasp the magnitude of what Christ did it would be the people of UR influences.  If we can see, understand, and proclaim to others that what Jesus did 2 days ago on the cross is actually powerful enough to redeem every living man of the flesh, born into this earth from Adam to now, regardless as to whether or not they even know or acknowledge it even happened, and NOT just for a tiny percentage of those who "do" confess his grand salvation; if we can proclaim that, then why is it such a hurdle for us to take the next leap and see that when Jesus stated IT IS FINISHED, he meant every word. 

Salvation is not "Jesus" AND .  . . punishment for a brief time.  Or Jesus AND personal payment for the really bad things we did.  It's Jesus and NOTHING. Whne I made the choice to follow him, there were no side agreements for him to bring my "natural-realm" justice to the really bad people.  That offer wasn't what he put on the table.  The salvation offereed was for ME and that's all that mattered to the Father at the time.  He wasn't attempting to appease my personal convictions about other people to abused the power of this realm beyond anything my mind could come up with on it's own.

He was just looking to set "me" free and that's what I agreed to.

It's like the story about the farmer who went looking for workers and he brought them on board at different times of the day and at the end of the day, the wages were all the same.  Those that worked longer got the same reward as those who were just brought in.  We are trying to do the same thing when we try to preach that some people will be greatly discipliened while others just a little . . .

The sacrifice that paid for all of it, was a once-and-for-all kind of payment.  No amnedments needed.  If he can save the whole world in one shot, what would make us think that he couldn't also forgive every sin in that same world-saving act?

[Molly]

Regarding Hitler--


26For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

--Heb 10

[Nathan]

Yes, the God-fire that burns carnality from within us, the very force that deceives us into the willful sinning in the first place.

It also occurs to me, given the title of this thread . . .that we tend to put the emphasis on "sin" and "that's" what God was focusing on when he sent Jesus to us . . .it's to wipe out sin . . .but I'm not so sure "that" was "the" focus.  I personally believe it has more to do with the curse than it does the sin.  Sin, for me, is the smoke that comes out of the fire.  The problem isn't the smoke . . .it can easily kill you . . .but if you dealt with just the smoke, well . . .unless you deal with the fire, there "is" no dealing with the smoke.  And for me, it's the same thing with sin.  Jesus did deal with sin, but sin is only the evidence of the curse.  The curse is the real issue.

Ya'll know of Noah's ark . . .all of the imagery and symbolism there right?  The huge climax of the whole story was when the ark came to "rest" on Mt. Ararat.  And the word Ararat has a specific definition that holds the key to God's redemptive plan.  Just like the island where John received the revelation of Jesus was called "Patmos" which means what?  Place of my killing.  It's a powerful principle declaring to all that for ANY to come into the revelaiton of the nature of Christ, we are all going to have to find that "place of OUR killing".  Where flesh meets the backside of our spirit.  It's an order . . . 

So as Patmos, the place, was a prophetical inclusion to what John was experiencing, so it is with Ararat . .which means . . .the curse is reversed.  And THAT'S what Jesus came to do in this realm . . .he proclaims that he's over come this world.  The means through which he did that was by way of the cross.  But the purpose, the reason why he did it was to reverse the curse that Adam brought into the human race.  The curse of alignment between soul and spirit.  God established that spirit would have authority over flesh and Adam stepped out of that alignment the moment he received from his Eve and ate of her the fruit "she" picked of her own accord.  That's why when she ate, nothing happened, but when he ate . . .literally . . .all hell broke loose.

Bottom line, I truly do appreciate that Jesus has removed the sin from the world.  But even better, I am SOOO thankful that he reversed the curse so that we're no longer governed by our minds.  But we can enter into his original alignment of intimacy by way of direct spirit-to-spirit relationship rather than trying to live in natural discipline though the annual sacrificing of animals, beasts killing beasts to temporarily atone the beastly nature that we've been born into.

[Taffy]

Ransom has a very specific meaning.  Should we ignore the meaning?  It is a payment paid to one who is holding another hostage in order to get him to release the hostage.

Could it mean anything else?



Ephesians 4:8
8Therefore it says,

    "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,
   and he gave gifts to men."

1 Timothy 2:6
Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.


"ransom"

G487
ἀντίλυτρον
antilutron
an-til'-oo-tron
From G473 and G3083; a redemption price: - ransom.


But, I had always thought the ransom was paid to Satan [not to complicate matters lol]. :dontknow:


"ransom"

money demanded for the return of a captured person
payment for the release of someone
exchange or buy back for money; under threat
the act of freeing from captivity or punishment

Why would it be Payed  to Satan :icon_flower:



God is LOVE and LIFE-anything outside this ONENESS is DEATH-

For mine -The ransom was Paid by his own decree  -- to DEATH-

:icon_flower:

[Taffy]

That's why when she ate, nothing happened, but when he ate . . .literally . . .all hell broke loose.

and all HELL did Nate- :icon_flower:

[jabcat]

That's what I was thinking too, Taf.  If not to satan (which I doubt), and IF not to God (which I'm not sure of), then maybe to someTHING rather than someONE - i.e., a curse, a condition, or a sentence - in your suggestion, death.   :dontknow:  Which (IMO, I understand many don't see it that way) would still have been instituted by God/according to His will (although He didn't make them sin, they made the choice that was set before them)   :2c:.   But that's another discussion.   :punish: