Q for all Christians (not just JW) about the ransom.

by Anony Mous 85 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Chariklo

  Hey, Prodigal Son

  And then there's the Prodigal Son view. You screw up, you die, you're sorry you didn't do more with your life, and daddy loves you anyway.

  I think that's fairly close to it!
• 

  Ding

  When someone commits a crime, our sense of justice tells us that someone must pay for the transgression.

  My understanding of the atonement is that it was a payment for sin required by the justice of God.

  Either we pay for our own sins or we receive by faith as a gift the payment made by Christ on our behalf.
• 

  cofty

  a payment for sin required by the justice of God.

  So is "justice" ome entity outside of god to which he must answer?
• 

  Chariklo

  When someone commits a crime, our sense of justice tells us that someone must pay for the transgression.

  No. Mine doesn't. Mine says, stop the poerson from committing another offence if possible and try and teach him to do better next time. Also, help the victim.

  My understanding of the atonement is that it was a payment for sin required by the justice of God.

  What sort of God do you believe in, then? One who functions by vengeful human standards? The God I believe in is infinitely good and infinitely wise. I suspect "payment for sin required by the justice of God" makes him kind of sigh sadly, if God can conceivably sigh, which is probably inifinitely too anthropomorphic.
• 

  Anony Mous

  No. Mine doesn't. Mine says, stop the poerson from committing another offence if possible and try and teach him to do better next time. Also, help the victim.

  That describes more Jesus, not Adam's God. Adam's God said you made a mistake therefore you and all your innocent children will die because you screwed up once.

  This is the point that many Christians make and which you can't logically wrap your head around:

  Jesus couldn't have paid the "ransom" for our sins to the Father; you pay a ransom to a kidnapper, and the Father wasn't holding us hostage. No, it was the Evil One who had captured us, due to our voluntary involvement in sin.

  So we should pay back to the Evil One since he is the one that captured us.

  It cost Jesus his blood to enter Hades and set us free. That's the payment, or ransom, but it obviously isn't paid *to* the Father.

  So to whom is the payment?

  Yet it is a sacrifice or offering to the Father, as a brave soldier might offer a dangerous act of courage to his beloved General.

  So the sacrifice, offering, payment or ransom isn't paid to the Father yet it was given to the Father voluntarily and at the same time he also provided it himself.

  You can claim that this is not to be taken as a literal argument as Godrulz above does but then how do you explain it if it can't be explained in simple, logical terms? The main question boils down to: why was it necessary for Jesus (or anyone beyond Adam) to die because 2 people did wrong? Where is the justice in punishing all the children of an offender (the offense being using their God given free will) simply to make a statement to your adversary and satisfy the need for blood?
• 

  corpusdei

  For me, and this was a prime factor in my own personal crisis of faith, the question regarding the ransom is one of necessity. The ransom of Jesus is necessary to redeem mankind of sin, which is an inherited condition from Adam and Eve.

  Think about that for a moment. Instead of allowing each individual the same perfect balance and choice provided to Adam and Eve - humanity, you and I and every single person through history, suffer, grow old and die, because of a hereditary punishment. None of us made that choice, none of us comitted that act, and yet we are made responsible for it. God provides a ransom to redeam mankind from a state that, ultimately, He has inflicted upon us.

  Essentially, that's like the state putting you on death row because some distant relative killed someone, then offering you a conditional pardon, calling it magnanimous and expecting praise for the entire business.
• 

  godrulz

  corp, this is an inaccurate straw man view that may be based on Augustinian, traditional 'original sin'. Sin is moral, not metaphysical. Adam is responsible for his sin and we are responsible for our own sin. We are sinners because we sin. We do not sin because we are born sinners. Sin is volitional, not genetic. You are confusing physical and moral depravity. We inherit physical depravity and the consequences of the fall from Adam (death, suffering, etc.). We form moral depravity through our own choices. We did choose to disobey, rebel against God, be lawless, selfish, etc. Ezekiel says that the soul that sins will die. Sinless Jesus, redeemed saints still physically die. Spiritual/eternal death is based on following in Adam's footsteps. Physical depravity is influential, not causative. We are responsible for our own choices. We are not condemned because Adam sinned, but because we personally sin (Rom. 1-3). The WT view of Adam, scales, perfect life for Adam's life, etc. is a wrong view of the necessity of the atonement. There are a number of theories (Christians have freedom to wrestle with these, disagree, etc.) relating to this. I believe the Moral Government theory is closest. If you investigate that and realize WT view is unbiblical, you may not be so quick to reject the necessity of His death and resurrection. We are not responsible for Adam's sin, but we are physically affected by it (believers die, but they don't go to hell).

  So, differentiate physical/moral depravity, see sin as volitional, not genetic, and understand the atonement issues are governmental, not personal (public vs retributive justice), and you will not be able to falsely accuse God with your last line. Wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions. Christ's death satisfies love, mercy, holiness, justice. It demonstrates the awfulness of sin and the great love of God (far cry from your impugning statement based on your ignorance of theology). It allows a holy God to extend mercy to repentant sinners without compromising His holy law and moral government. If you have any idea of our Judeo-Christian legal system, you will see a glimpse of some of these principles that you would defend (we don't let serial killers loose for a reason and expect justice if we are wronged in a heinous way).
• 

  corpusdei

  godrulz>> I appreciate the criticism. I do see the point you're making, and I agree with the distinction between moral and metaphysical sin. The flaw in your argument is the same one that would invalidate mine - it's the question of the consequence of inherited, or metaphysical, sin. If that metaphysical sin carried no consequence, or if the consequence was justifiable, then I would wholeheartedly agree with you, and my view of God would be significantly different.
  
  My disagreement hinges on two points - the point that we do not sin because we are born sinners, and that the consequence of metaphysical sin is justifiable.
  
  The first question is whether we are sinners because we sin, or if we sin because we are sinners. I argue that the metaphysical sin that we are born with, at least according to Christian theology, creates a prediliction towards moral sin. Mankind is not born perfect, as Adam was, nor are we afforded the similar opportunity of choice between perfection and moral sin. The deck is stacked, as it were, and even the apostle Paul felt the conflict: "For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, there dwells nothing good; for ability to wish is present with me, but ability to work out what is fine is not" - Rom 7:18
  
  So if metaphysical sin does stack the deck and creates that tendancy towards moral sin, then my argument is doubally valid. Not only is this sin inherited, but by creating a situation whereby mankinds natural inclination is towards moral sin, God's offer for redemption through the ransom of Jesus sacrifice takes on a significantly different light.
  
  Second is the question of whether the consequences of inherited sin is justifiable. Aging and death are the consequence of metaphysical sin, not moral sin, otherwise morality would have a direct measurable effect on lifespan and doctors would be able to proscribe Romans 6:23 instead of penicillin. This consequence, essentially a death sentance, is present in all mankind regardless of our moral choices. It's difficult to consider aging and death, with all its associated pain and suffering, to be a justifiable consequence of metaphysical sin.

  Ultimately, your points for atonement issues being governmental vs. personal clarify instead the difficulty in justifying the need for the ransom of Jesus. My action would be no less reprehensible if I were to kill someone through a slow-acting poison than if I were to hit them with my car. More so, in fact, if I were to then turn around and attempt to gain thanks by offering the antidote.

  While it may have been a few years since I've dusted off my Aquinas, I'm certainly not ignorent of the multiple theodicies developed over the years. Each of them, yours included, contains either logical weakness or some suspension of reason in deference to faith - two things that I cannot accept as a reasoning, intelligent, free-willed entity. About the only one that I give much creedence would be Anslem's Ontological argument, and even that makes me twitchy.
• 

  godrulz

  I don't know what metaphysical sin is (no such thing). Physical depravity is the consequences/punishment of Adam's sin that tainted the whole race. I am saying that all sin is moral/volitional, NOT metaphysical/genetic (moral vs metaphysical are philosophical categories distinguishing stuff/being and what we do with it; having a body is not sinful, but it is what we do with it that determines vice/virtue; Pauline use of flesh is a metaphor for sin, not a wooden literalism). Physical depravity gives us a propensity to sin, but original sin is wrong to think it is a causative, coercive thing back of the will inherited from Adam through sperm/blood (sin is moral, not metaphysical/physical; metaphysical sin does not make sense).

  Aquinas was much too philosophical and not as biblical as Catholics think.
• 

  cofty

  godrulz why do always assume people who disagree with you are ignorant of the facts? Some of us thoroughly understand theology and still reject christian doctrine. The central doctrine of christianity is nothing more than a twist on pagan blood sacrifice.

  I don't say that as an ignorant outsider but as an ex-christian who was immersed in theology for many years. Your convoluted posts are nothing more than mental masturbation.

  Are you familiar with "The Courtier's Reply"? Do you think we "lack proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics"?