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

by Anony Mous 85 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  corpusdei

  Aquinas was not only more philosophical, he was also seriously, painfully dull in volumes thick enough to beat someone to death with.

  It appears that we do agree that there is an inherited condition which leads to a propensity to sin (be it physical depravity, metaphysical sin, or what other label you like). I don't state that it's a direct causative, but I do argue that it's a coersive force, and that deviation from the original, Adamic condition is not an effect of moral choice and sin, nor are the associated mortal pains and sufferings. If it were, then the offer of redemption and absolution would be magnanimous. Yes, there is significant pain in the world caused through moral sin, and I fully agree that the responsibility for that is on our own heads. But I cannot rationally agree with the offer of absolution to clear myself of the stain of a sin that I did not get to enjoy.
• 

  godrulz

  We are all sinners in need of a sinless Savior. We have more than enough personal sins to merit His sacrifice and our acceptance of it. Forget about blaming things on Adam, Satan, parents, potty training, WT, etc.
• 

  cofty

  You still haven't explained the connection between our forgiveness and Jesus' bloody body hanging on a cross
• 

  godrulz

  God freely wants to extend forgiveness and mercy. He is full of love, mercy, grace. The issues are not personal in that God does not need to be appeased by chicken blood to be made willing or predisposed to forgive (retributive justice). The issues are governmental (public justice). How does He uphold justice and the Law, show the awfulness of sin, demonstrate His love, etc. By coming Himself in Christ to die as a substitute for the penalty of sin/death, He can now wisely extend mercy instead of wrath to penitent individuals. The wages of sin/death are not swept under the carpet, but dealt with by the God-Man dying as a substitute for us. Though literal payment theories are wrong/problematic, you could understand in our legal system that a person could pay your fine and you would be let go. Justice is satisfied and mercy can then be extended. The criminal cannot pay his own fine. The contrast between God is infinite, holy perfection and finite, sinful men who cannot save themselves, never be perfect, etc. Being in Christ means we are accepted in Him, great love/forgiveness/mercy. Apart from Christ, the Law must be upheld and the person pays for his own sin. Law without consequences is mere suggestion and a license for evil to abound unchecked. We don't need to understand all the details (Albert Barnes' 'The Atonement' builds a case) to know that we are sinners, Christ died in our place for sinners, and that faith in Him is receiving the free gift of eternal life because eternal life is in Him and God's righteous moral government is not compromised when we trust His perfect provision. Apart from Christ, it would be unwise and unjust to extend mercy to impenitent sinners. God's holy law would be compromised, there would be no deterrence to destructive sin, etc.
• 

  Anony Mous

  @godrulz: There are 3 major problems with your argument.

  If we sin because of what we do "having a body is not sinful, but it is what we do with it that determines vice/virtue;" then how do babies that die 5 minutes after delivery sin? They have done nothing but gasped for air and were somehow unable to do so and thus they have died and since every soul that sins, dies, babies committed a sin? That would be true of any child under 3 that cannot understand anything about morality, virtues or vices.

  The other thing is that you assume belief and trust in Christ and the necessity of his body as atonement for our sins in order to accept the virtue of his sacrifice. I do not accept that this is "God's perfect will" but question why God did it in this convoluted way in the first place. There are several ways you can pose the question and give an answer but they all boil down to: God had his slaves in Paradise and they ran off to another master (or to freedom), how does it make sense that the original master pays himself in order to retrieve his slaves. And why do we have to be slaves if we're endowed with free will?

  The last thing is that this is not a fine that somebody else can pay. It is a death sentence that everyone is confined by. The legal system does not allow somebody to sit out your jail time or death sentence for you so the argument falls apart right there. We are punished for something we didn't commit even if we didn't commit any sin, we would still die.
• 

  cofty

  So why do we all sin godrulz? Was gods creation inevitably flawed and doomed from the beginning?
• 

  cofty

  God does not need to be appeased by chicken blood to be made willing or predisposed to forgive - godrulz

  I think that is exactly how early christians understood Jesus' death, they saw it as a fulfillment of all the blood sacrifices of the OT.
  
  "Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed." - 1 Cor 5:7
  
  Lets have a look at Paul's discussion of justification in Romans.
  
  But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. - Romans 3:21-26
  
  The phrase in bold actually says that "god set forth (pro-te'-tha-me) Christ to be a propitiation (he-lä-sta'-re-on) through faith in his blood."
  
  It was not the imitation of Jesus' example of a faithful life that leads to righteousness but faith in his bloody sacrifice as a fulfillment of the Atonement day ritual. It was on that day that the High Priest confessed the sins of the nation over the head of a goat and then cut its throat and offered its blood in the Most Holy. A second goad, the goat for Azazel or scapegoat, was chased off into the wilderness.
  
  The shedding of Jesus' blood was an essential requirement for the forgiveness of sin.
  
  Now lets take a closer look at the two Greek words I have highlighted above.
  
  According to Strong's lexicon pro-te'-tha-me means "to set forth to be looked at, to expose to view; to expose to public view; of the bodies of the dead"
  
  It was common practice in the ancient world to leave the bodies of executed criminals exposed to public view as a warning to others. Paul uses precisely this imagery in describing what god did to Jesus. It was not the Romans or the Jews who made a public spectacle of Jesus' broken and bloody body it was god himself.
  
  Further, according to Paul, the purpose of this gruesome scene is to act as a propitiation - he-lä-sta'-re-on. Again according to Strong this word was used of the cover of the ark of the covenant in the Holy of Holies, which was sprinkled with the blood of the expiatory victim on the annual day of atonement (this rite signifying that the life of the people, the loss of which they had merited by their sins, was offered to God in the blood as the life of the victim, and that God by this ceremony was appeased and their sins expiated); hence the lid of expiation, the propitiatory.
  
  The picture that Paul presents is that of the wrath of an angry god appeased by the sight of Jesus bloody body hung on the cross.
• 

  corpusdei

  godrulz>> For a moment, I want to take everything you've said as absolute truth. I don't necessarily agree, but for the purposes of this question I want to consider it all correct. In that framework, is the absence of worship (all other things, actions, behaviours aside - I'm only asking about the lack of worship) to God a sin, or sinful state, that would prevent the application of (not the opportunity for, the application of) this forgiveness / redemption / eternal life through God's Light?
• 

  godrulz

  anony: you are confusing physical and moral depravity, physical death and spiritual/eternal death. Babies do not die because they have original sin or are sinners. They do not need the Catholic sacrament of infant baptism to be saved.

  cofty: Lucifer and Adam sinned without a causative nature back of their will. Mind and will are sufficient explanations for sin. The freedom and will to have great good and love implies the equal necessity to be able to misuse this gift of will for great evil or selfishness. The alternative is robotics who cannot love, relate, be responsible, etc.

  corpus: if the greatest commandment is to love God supremely with our whole being, then the greatest sin is to not do so. To trust God for salvation is to know, love, obey, worship Him. Faith is a condition of salvation and includes expressions of loving worship. Worship will be one of the biggest things saints to for all eternity (Rev. 4-5 foretaste glimpse). Everything we do can be an act of worship, not just verbal praise. I am secure in my assurance of eternal life despite not worshipping every second of the day. It is an ultimate choice to have God as Boss instead of King Self. Subordinate choices of loving obedience flow out of this. Those who have relationship with Him worship in spirit and in truth because of love. Those who are religious compartmentalize their life and give God a piece of the pie while remaining selfish and unregenerate.

  Note that this love and worship is directed to a person in relationship, NOT proven by obedience to an organization with endless rules and regulations that have nothing to do with knowing, loving, worshipping, serving God. Cults give identity, security, uniformity, simplistic answers, but they do not give life nor relationship with God.
• 

  Chariklo

  So why do we all sin godrulz?

  We sin because of our natural inborn tendencies to selfishness. It's called concupiscence. It's what Paul was talking about when he said "the good that I would I do not and the evil that I wopuld not, that I do". King James version, I think, sorry, that's what I have ingrained on my memory since for ever, so that's what comes up first thing in the morning.

  Was gods creation inevitably flawed and doomed from the beginning?

  Interesting thought. The easy answer is in the Garden of Eden but that's far too literal and answer to satisfy me. I'll think about that and try to remember to get back to it in this thread.