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

by Anony Mous 85 Replies latest watchtower bible

godrulz

Dog: Were you ever a JW and how did you come to see that Jesus is Jehovah in the flesh?
Terry

Death is not a person who kidnaps people and cannot be bought through ransom.
God operates out of Justice (i.e. everone gets what they deserve/will not get what they don't)
Death is earned by behavior. Sin=bad behavior.
To disconnect death from man's behavior is to abandon Justice.
God cannot be a Just God by abandoning Justice.
Otherwise, those who deserve (by sinning) death would be let off and those who are perfect in behavior (Jesus) would have to die!
The very opposite of Justice (injustice) would be God's grace.
Consequently, the idea of a ransom paid to God which bribes him as Judge to commute man's sentence (sinner) is blasphemy.
Grace=Blasphemy.
How did this get to be the most important doctrine in Christianity?
Apostacy.
djeggnog

@djeggnog wrote:
In order to do "the work of God," we must "exercise faith" in Jesus, who God sent forth. To put this in another way, we must put our confidence in what Jesus' name represents by doing godly works of faith that demonstrate the confidence we have in the saving power of Jesus' ransom sacrifice by living up to what our baptism means. Just as I stated before, "He that believes and is baptized will be saved." (Mark 16:16) If we "publicly declare that 'word in your own mouth' that Jesus is Lord," just as did Jesus' apostles in the first century, then our obediently doing so would constitute the godly works of faith, for faith in Jesus' name, that is to say, faith in his ransom sacrifice that was made on behalf of believing mankind, is the condition upon which our salvation is assured, for those not believing will not be saved through him. (Romans 10:9; John 3:16-18)
@Deputy Dog:
That's the same type of thinking the Jews had in verse 28 of ch. 6.
How exactly did you come to this conclusion? The Jews didn't do the work of God by exercising faith in Jesus and get baptized in John's baptism. They hardly did so even when baptism in Jesus' name commenced after Pentecost, even though some did get baptized.
God does the work of God, not people, that's why it's called the "work of GOD". People do the work of men.
No, the work of God is what Jesus said it was at John 6:29, and many of the Jews to whom Jesus preached had no desire to do this. Anyone that does the work of God is someone that 'exercises faith in him whom Jehovah sent forth' is, in fact, doing the work of God. You're mistaken as to the reason Jesus referred to exercising faith in the ransom as "the work of God." The provision of the ransom provided by Jehovah was Jehovah's part; our exercising faith in it is man's part.
@Terry:
Death is not a person who kidnaps people and cannot be bought through ransom.
No one intimated that death was a person that kidnapped anyone. The Bible indicates that Adam's offspring were sold into bondage to sin and death. As the result of Adam's sin, all mankind became captives to the law of sin and death, "sold under sin." (Romans 7:14) But it is through faith in Christ Jesus that mankind can be set free "from the law of sin and of death." (Romans 8:2) And as long as we continue to present ourselves as slaves of sin by obeying sin, then we were "free as to as to righteousness" with death in view, but if we present as slaves of slaves to righteousness through our obedience, then only then can be free from the law of sin and of death "with holiness in view." (Romans 6:16-20)
Consequently, the idea of a ransom paid to God which bribes him as Judge to commute man's sentence (sinner) is blasphemy.
Grace=Blasphemy
It's ok that you view grace as being blasphemy. This is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but I think this to be a ridiculous thing for anyone to say, but this would, of course, be my opinion. God provided the ransom himself by sending his own son to be born to woman to become our next of kin, our "uncle," as it were, Adam's brother, who could by virtue of his having a perfect life, laid it down as a ransom in satisfaction of God's justice, in order to redeem those who were yet in Adam's loins -- us -- whose lives Adam had not considered when he sinned against God and thereby took away from us our right to live. It is only by our acceptance of the ransom by faith do we obtain a release from the law of sin and death, in which ransom those resurrected during Judgment Day must also put their faith if they, too, are to obtain a release from the law of sin and death. By so doing, Jesus becomes to us our "Eternal Father," a second Adam. (Isaiah 9:6)
To suggest that God bribed himself in order to commute Adam's sentence is to make God culpable of obstructing his own justice, which he would never do. God didn't commute Adam's sentence of death; Adam is dead forever. What God did through Christ is pardoned the sins of Adam's children that did nothing deserving of death, but who inherited their sinful state from their faith. God's justice required that he take the action he did to resolve the plight of mankind, who had been conceived in sin due to their being the offspring of Adam.
You sound confused about many things, @Terry. You should stick to what the Bible teaches, because it certainly doesn't teach that mankind had committed a crime the likeness of the transgression committed by our father, Adam (Romans 5:14), nor that God commuted mankind's sentence as if we were even guilty of having committed a crime. If mankind was guilty of sin, God would not more have pardoned our sins than he did Adam's sin. God's Justice wouldn't have allowed such a thing as one can see from reading in the Bible about God's dealings with mankind over thousands of years, and especially his dealings with Israel. You don't know God at all. I know that you made all of this up, and you should have been the first to know that what you were saying here about God wasn't true since this was your thought.
@djeggnog
Terry

No one intimated that death was a person that kidnapped anyone. The Bible indicates that Adam's offspring were sold into bondage to sin and death.
What you give in the first sentence you take away in the second one.
Think about what you are saying for a minute.
For a bondage situation to exist three things must be in place.
1.A prisoner or victim who is captured.
2.A person who does the capturing and enslaving who binds the victim, or, who receives a captured victim in a transaction of bondage.
3.A person who pays the fee to the one holding the prisoner for ransom.
Do you identify who is who in each of these roles?
You identify:
1.Adam's offspring (victims)
2.Sin and Death (bond holder)
3.Jesus/Jehovah (ransom payer)
(You EXCLUDE Adam without proof, of course, as one of the captives who can be freed. Be that as it may..)
Here is where this leaves your argument.
You say: But it is through faith in Christ Jesus that mankind can be set free "from the law of sin and of death."
You are trying to have it both ways.
Sin and Death are neither persons who can receive payment of ransom nor are they Law makers.
It is GOD who creates Law and enforces it.
God wanted Adam dead. Adam is dead.
God wanted Adam's offspring to die. We die.
Offending God's JUSTICE (breaking the law) exacted a penalty from God which is death.
IT IS A DIVERSIONARY TACTIC to create a Straw Man and it is a fallacy.
SIN and DEATH are not persons. GOD is a person.
Pointing to SIN and DEATH as bondholders who must be PAID a ransom is FALLACIOUS.
Why?
God is in total charge of man's fate.
Either God exacts Justice under Law or He abandons Justice by Law.
He pays HIMSELF because HE is the beginning and end of Justice in the first place.
Nobody can pay DEATH anything because DEATH is not a PERSON.
The whole argument about GRACE is poetic nonsense and a plot device to give Jesus special status by bible writers who are really bad
at logic and big on metaphor.
Heaven

You say: But it is through faith in Christ Jesus that mankind can be set free "from the law of sin and of death."
This statement also says that all those people born in between Adam and Jesus can never be set free because they never could have had faith in him because he wasn't alive and preaching. No one knew of this guy named Jesus. I guarantee you there are people today on this Earth who have never heard of the guy either. So all those people are screwed. Yeah, sounds right to me. (not)
godrulz

Rom. 1 shows that all men are universally condemned and without excuse, even if they have not heard of Jesus. God also judges according to light we have and will do the right thing (Gen. 18:25). Babies lack moral/mental capacity and go to heaven based on their non-rejection of Christ. The Bible is clear about people like you and me who have heard the gospel. We can make inferences about those who have not heard (post-mortem salvation, universalism, inclusivism, annihilation, etc. are all heretical views).
As to the Old Testament, people were saved based on trusting YHWH and His provision/plan at the time. They had the shadows/types and we have reality in Christ (Heb. 1:1-3). They looked forward to the cross by faith and we look back on the finished work by faith. Calling on the name of Jesus (Rom. 10:9-10; Phil. 2:5-11) is calling on the name of YHWH. The OT saints called on God as Savior and NT saints call on God in Christ as Savior (Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12; Jn. 3:16). In all this, all believers in all generations are saved by grace through faith apart from works in God's revelation/provision at their time. We are in the Church Age, so leave the judging to God and embrace our gospel, the power of God (Rom. 1:16).
Deputy Dog

godrulz
Dog: Were you ever a JW and how did you come to see that Jesus is Jehovah in the flesh?
NO. I was never a JW. I have some JW friends and many XJW friends. The Holy Spirit through God's word clearly reveals Jesus is Jehovah to me.
djeggnog
Here are some examples of the "Work of God" you can look in a concordence yourself
Psa 64:9 Then all men will fear, And they will declare the work of God, And will consider what He has done.
Ecc 7:13 Consider the work of God, For who is able to straighten what He has bent?
Ecc 8:16 When I gave my heart to know wisdom and to see the task which has been done on the earth (even though one should never sleep day or night), Ecc 8:17 and I saw every work of God, I concluded that man cannot discover the work which has been done under the sun. Even though man should seek laboriously, he will not discover; and though the wise man should say, "I know," he cannot discover.
No, the work of God is what Jesus said it was at John 6:29, and many of the Jews. to whom Jesus preached had no desire to do this. Anyone that does the work of God is someone that 'exercises faith in him whom Jehovah sent forth' is, in fact, doing the work of God. You're mistaken as to the reason Jesus referred to exercising faith in the ransom as "the work of God." The provision of the ransom provided by Jehovah was Jehovah's part; our exercising faith in it is man's part.
Sorry, but my bible says otherwise and that Faith/belief is a gift/work that God does for us. I've quoted enough scripture for you to see that.
Terry

Babies lack moral/mental capacity and go to heaven based on their non-rejection of Christ.
Then abortion should be a sacrament. It guarantees your child a place with God!
That's called Reductio Ad Absurdum. Reduce an argument to its implications and demonstrate the absurdity of the claim.
godrulz

Babies go to heaven, but murder is morally wrong, so pragmatism is not a legit moral theory. Just because God redeems a bad situation is not license to attempt to make two wrongs into a right.
djeggnog

@Terry wrote:
Death is not a person who kidnaps people and cannot be bought through ransom.
@djeggnog wrote:
No one intimated that death was a person that kidnapped anyone. The Bible indicates that Adam's offspring were sold into bondage to sin and death. As the result of Adam's sin, all mankind became captives to the law of sin and death, "sold under sin." (Romans 7:14) But it is through faith in Christ Jesus that mankind can be set free "from the law of sin and of death." (Romans 8:2) And as long as [we continue] to present ourselves as slaves of sin by obeying sin, then we were "free as to as to righteousness" with death in view, but if we present as slaves of slaves to righteousness through our obedience, then only then can be free from the law of sin and of death "with holiness in view." (Romans 6:16-20)
@Terry wrote:
What you give in the first sentence you take away in the second one.
I don't believe the fact that death is not a person is an issue (my first sentence), so the fact that Adam's offspring were sold into bondage to sin and death (my second sentence) would seem to be the issue.
Think about what you are saying for a minute.
For a bondage situation to exist three things must be in place.
1.A prisoner or victim who is captured.
2.A person who does the capturing and enslaving who binds the victim, or, who receives a captured victim in a transaction of bondage.
3.A person who pays the fee to the one holding the prisoner for ransom.
Before we continue with this, I want you to know that we were not here discussing any "bondage situation"; we are here discussing a "ransom situation," for a bondage situation could be the voluntary servitude of an employee for his or her employer, for whose work he or she receives compensation and the employee is neither a "prisoner" nor a "victim," neither are they physically bound or tied-up as it were. Also, the money paid to an employee by his or her employer is not a ransom, but is mutually agreed-upon compensation, payment for the work done for the employer by the employee. I'm going to assume that what you meant to write was "ransom situation" and not "bondage situation."
Do you identify who is who in each of these roles?
You identify:
1.Adam's offspring (victims)
2.Sin and Death (bond holder)
3.Jesus/Jehovah (ransom payer)
I don't view all of these "roles" as being appropriate. Yes, Adam's offspring -- us -- would be the "victims" that were affected by Adam's sin. They -- we -- were sold into a deplorable state in that we were born into a state of hopelessness having no right to enjoy real life anywhere on this planet, which "condition" we inherited from our common father, Adam, who sold all of his offspring into a life of sin and death.
It was as if Adam defaulted on his right to live in his earthly home that God had given him by failing to make the mortgage payments when due. Because of his disobedience, Jehovah God essentially "foreclosed" on Adam's right to live in his home, and he was summarily evicted from it since it was an impossibility for him to make the delinquent mortgage payments to God so as to reinstate the mortgage. Again, sin and death is not some "bond holder," but a condition of destitution in which Adam's offspring was delivered after the foreclosure proceedings which led to Adam's eviction from his home.
It is important to keep in mind that Adam wasn't just evicted from his garden home in Eden, but from living anywhere on this planet. Not only was Adam and his wife both sentenced to death, Adam lost his sonship. As Jesus explained, "the slave does not remain in the household forever; the son remains forever." (John 8:35) It was as if they, on the very day that they sinned against God, had died as far as their right to live in God's household. With the lost of his sonship, Adam's eviction from Eden meant that he had no right to live anywhere on Planet Earth.
Because Adam's sonship had been taken away from him, Adam's children were likewise born without sonship rights, with no right to live on this planet, for when Adam lost his sonship, he lost his right to be a part of God's household, he lost his right to live here, and so, having been reduced to being a slave here, he had nothing to give to his offspring. Just as Adam had become a slave, we were ourselves born in slavery, too, since Adam couldn't bequeath sonship to us, since he no longer possessed sonship rights.
Consequently, it was as if Adam had sold all of his children to an enslaved condition, which is not the real life that Adam had once enjoyed, but a life that meant carving out the best life you could for yourself and for your family until you die. "In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken." (Genesis 3:19) Despite how hard we might work to make a better life for ourselves, no matter how much sweat may have been exuded by our hard work, what Jehovah God told Adam impacted not just Adam and his wife, but has come to impact all of Adam's offspring in that all of their hard work and ours is for naught, because no matter how rich Adam became, he would die as a slave he was with nothing for himself. What Jesus said about the slave applied not just to Adam, but applied equally to us: "The slave does not remain in the household forever; the son remains forever." (John 8:35)
Jesus explained the kinds of decisions that would have been Adam's to make, and ours to make as well, had Adam not lost his sonship. By way of illustration he related how, "the land of a certain rich man produced well. Consequently he began reasoning within himself, saying, 'What shall I do, now that I have nowhere to gather my crops?' So he said, 'I will do this: I will tear down my storehouses and build bigger ones, and there I will gather all my grain and all my good things; and I will say to my soul: "Soul, you have many good things laid up for many years; take your ease, eat, drink, enjoy yourself."' Such decision-making was to be mankind's lot; we were supposed to live forever to enjoy the fruit of our labors.
But the land of this rich man wasn't really his; it was, in effect, leased for the term of his life as a slave in God's household here on earth. The rich man's life wasn't going to last forever. Remember that this rich man's father, Adam, had not only been foreclosed on and evicted from his home, but he had lost his sonship, so just as Adam had been reduced to working the land as a slave, this rich man in Jesus' parable had likewise been reduced to working the land as a slave as had his father and his father before him and his father before him, since they had all died, not as sons, but as slaves.
This was but one of the points that Jesus makes in this account that beings at Luke 12:13 about the need to guard against covetousness, and his parable at Luke 12:16-21, was really designed to make the point about the unreasonableness of our trying to become rich when it is pointless now for us to pursue riches when we are slaves having no sonship rights, which is a sobering truth that ought to battle back any covetous desire in slaves to become rich. "But God said to him, 'Unreasonable one, this night they are demanding your soul from you. Who, then, is to have the things you stored up?' So it goes with the man that lays up treasure for himself but is not rich toward God." Now is the time, Jesus said, for us to store up spiritual riches, to become "rich toward God."
Now where it seems that I lost you, @Terry, is in laying out what the ransom is, how it works, the purpose it serves. Neither Jehovah or Jesus has paid a ransom; Jesus died as a ransom. I don't know if you have in mind the plot of a movie you once saw, where someone's child was kidnapped, and the parents of the child receive a demand of $1 million from the kidnappers as a ransom in order to get the child back, but this is one example where money is paid as a ransom. Lebanon might be holding four Israeli soldiers as prisoners-of-war and will not release them to Israeli authorities unless Israel is prepared to turn over to a high-ranking Lebanese military official being held by Israel as a prisoner-of-law as a ransom to Lebanese authorities, and this is another example where a four-for-one exchange is paid as a ransom.
As I'm more familiar with Hollywood, the ransom that Jesus paid might be described in terms of a financier that withdraws financing on a major movie project because it has lost confidence in the completion of the motion picture for which it has already financed due to the production costs that seem cost prohibitive and which exceed the line of credit extended to the producer of the project.
There are pre-production costs, production costs, and post-production costs. There is the producer and the directors, but also the financial managers, business managers, lawyers, accountants and office staff who all have roles throughout the various phases of production.
Pre-production is the planning phase, where things like budgeting, casting, location, set design, costume design, construction and scheduling have their own degree of importance to the movie project. While producers oversee the entire project, the director works with the producer and the production managers, who is responsible for the various crews needed, travel arrangements, casting and equipment used, like cameras, and video and audio equipment. Directors are in charge of the cast and crew, and supervise the screenwriters, costume designers, set designers and the lighting people; they also approve the music and the scenery used. They will usually delegate things like moving the equipment, arranging rooming accommodations and food to assistant directors to do.
In the production phase, actors, walk-ons stuntpeople and extras all work together, along with cinematographers, camera operators, gaffers will work with the director of photography, sound engineers, boom people, firm recordists, special effects people and grips, and today they avail make good use of computer animation specialists to portray on screen things too dangerous for stuntpeople to perform.
In the post-production phase, there are film editors and dubbing editors that must produce the film clips that become movie trailers, and arrange for the appearances of the actors in tv interviews to sow an interest in the film. Film librarians become involved as well as marketing people, who advertise the movie project. Often a soundtrack for a film is produced for sale by a recording studios and there is also the DVD rights to the movie that must be negotiated during this phase.
I mention these things to make the point that Adam was like this movie producer, having literally billions of people in his loins for whom he was responsible like the hundreds of people involved in a given movie project, and because most of these people have families for whom they provide support, I want you to focus on what happened to mankind in the context of what happens to all of these folks and their families when the following occurs only half-way-in, just five months after this project began.
The estimated cost of the movie project is $200 million for a planned 10-month shooting schedule, but after five months in production, the producer is suddenly arrested for possession of several kilos of cocaine after which the bank immediately cuts off his line of credit so as to limit its exposure to the $100 million that was actually borrowed against the producer's line of credit. This movie is not going to get made unless someone else comes along that is willing to take on the project, but here's the sad part:
There are a total of 350 people involved in the project and now they are just as suddenly no longer employed. Unemployment pangs now rip through the 350 and each of the families. With the plug suddenly pulled, the now-unemployed are no longer in a position to pay their bills for the indefinite future, and after a month their unemployment status has become a severe hardship for the 350 people associated with the project as well as their families. Two months later, their former boss is convicted for distribution of a controlled substance and sentenced to life imprisonment so that all work on the movie project was lost. It was rough trying to pay one's monthly bills with no money coming in the first month, and after two months, it's gotten really rough for the 350.
Jehovah is God, so, of course, you would expect him to know about the plight of this producer and the plight of his employees and his employees' families, and he knows the plight of the 350 is not their own doing, so he decides to help them by sending his son to pay off the debts incurred by the first producer and to thereby resurrect the movie project by providing the financing for the project so as to buy back what had been lost to the 350 by his paying what was, in effect, a $200 million "ransom" to become the second producer of the project. By Jesus becoming the second producer, the 350 would obtain relief from all that they have been made to suffer during their two-month layoff.
However, working under this new arrangement required the 350 to resume work with a 45-day probationary period to see if they were willing to meet the requirements of the second producer. Prompt attendance was one such requirement, for tardiness would not be tolerated. Those meeting these requirements were retained while those that failed to do so were terminated.
Notice, @Terry, that no one was kidnapped, and yet a ransom of $200 million was paid by the second producer in order to pay off the debts owed by the first producer, and also to buy back the movie company that had been lost to the 350 through no fault of their own resulting in their unemployment. Being the earthly son of God, Adam was a part of God's household, but when he sinned, he forever lost his right to enjoy perfect human life. Jehovah sent Jesus, his only-begotten spirit son, to earth to become the second earthly son of God in order to die as a ransom in order to relieve Adam's offspring for all that they had suffered as the consequence of Adam's sin.
Now unlike Adam, who had forfeited his right to enjoy perfect human life had no currency whatsoever, when Jesus died, he had not forfeited his right to enjoy perfect human life, and so his life had currency, for by means of his life, he was able to buy back what had been lost to all of Adam's children, namely, the right to enjoy perfect human life, by his paying what was, in effect, a "ransom" to become our next-of-kin. By forever giving up his right to enjoy perfect human life for himself and his as-yet-unborn offspring, Jesus was able to not only satisfy God's justice as far as Adam's children were concerned, but he also became our father by adoption, so that we might gain the right to enjoy perfect human life as the offspring of the second Adam.
Notice again, @Terry, that no one was kidnapped, and yet the ransom paid by the second Adam of his right to enjoy perfect human life was paid in order to pay off the debt owed of the first Adam, and also in order to provide to mankind the opportunity to receive what been lost to us through no fault of their own, which resulted in the destitute state in which we find ourselves today as the result of Adam's sin.
However, this new arrangement requires mankind to go through a kind of "probationary period" to see if they are willing to measure up to the requirements of the second Adam, the Lord Jesus Christ. Mankind is actually going through such a probationary period right now. Those exercising faith in Jesus are those that are obediently meeting his requirements and are going to be the ones retained while those that fail to obediently meet his requirements will perish.
@Terry wrote:
Consequently, the idea of a ransom paid to God which bribes him as Judge to commute man's sentence (sinner) is blasphemy.
Grace=Blasphemy
@djeggnog wrote:
To suggest that God bribed himself in order to commute Adam's sentence is to make God culpable of obstructing his own justice, which he would never do. God didn't commute Adam's sentence of death; Adam is dead forever. What God did through Christ is pardoned the sins of Adam's children that did nothing deserving of death, but who inherited their sinful state from their faith. God's justice required that he take the action he did to resolve the plight of mankind, who had been conceived in sin due to their being the offspring of Adam.
@Terry wrote:
(You EXCLUDE Adam without proof, of course, as one of the captives who can be freed. Be that as it may..)
What other "proof" do I need, @Terry? What you fail to understand, is that Adam was an intentional manslayer, so he was not entitled to receive a pardon from God, whereas we became sinners through no fault of our own, so we were all entitled to receive a pardon from God, and this pardon was granted mankind on Pentecost in 33 AD when Jesus began to pour out holy spirit upon his disciples.
In one of your previous messages, you suggested that I had spoken about God as having accepted a ransom as a bribe in order to commute man's sentence, but Adam sinned before there were born to him any children; we hadn't yet been born and yet when we were born, we were born with the same malady that plagued Adam, from which he died, namely, sin.
Because Jesus gave his perfect human life as a ransom for mankind, God didn't commute our sins to some lesser offense, but he pardoned our sins so that the slate was wiped clean as far as we were concerned, which opened the door to us to have righteousness imputed to us by reason of our faith in Jesus' name, that is to say, our faith in Jesus' ransom sacrifice. If our sins had been commuted to a lesser offense, then there would still exist a record of our initial conviction as well as the disposition after our sin had been commuted.
But when a pardon is granted, there exists no record of the offense whatsoever; it is as if no trial had ever occurred, let alone a conviction. This may help you to understand how "if the Son sets you free, you will be actually free." (John 8:36) If one should have a consciousness of sin, then one's conscience is defiled; one is without faith and he or she does not have a clean conscience toward God. (Titus 1:15) Only when one gets baptized does one do the work of God and exercise faith in the ransom. (John 6:29; 1 Peter 3:21) When one's sins are pardoned by God, they are not just forgiven, but forgotten by him as if such had never been committed.
Here is where this leaves your argument.
You say: But it is through faith in Christ Jesus that mankind can be set free "from the law of sin and of death."
You are trying to have it both ways.
I'm trying to have what "both ways"? I'm going to have to wait for you to explain to me what it is you see as being a problem. I see no problem with my statement.
Sin and Death are neither persons who can receive payment of ransom nor are they Law makers.
This is true; they are not real persons. Regarding his disciples, Jesus said at Matthew 5:13: "You are the salt of the earth," but they weren't really salt. This was a figure of speech. Jesus said at John 5:5: "I am the vine, you are the branches," but Jesus wasn't really a grapevine and neither were his disciples, the branches of a grapevine. This was a figure of speech. Jesus said to his apostles about Lazarus at John 11:11: "I am journeying there to awaken him from sleep," but Jesus was using "sleep" as a metaphor for "death," just a figure of speech.
If I said to you that "time flew away from me," you would have to be a moron to believe I was saying that time sprouted wings and flew off. This would be an idiomatic expression meaning that "time passed unnoticed by me," a figure of speech. If I were to tell you to "keep your eye on the ball," this would be an idiomatic way of telling you to "pay close attention," a figure of speech. When the Bible refers to sin and death ruling as kings, "sin" and "death" are being personified. Each of these is just a figure of speech. At Romans 5:17, the Bible speaks of death ruling "as king from Adam down to Moses," and at Romans 5:21, the Bible speaks of sin ruling "as king with death." If as Romans 8:2 says, sin and death are the law, figuratively speaking, these do issue commands that govern its subjects over whom they reign.
IT IS A DIVERSIONARY TACTIC to create a Straw Man and it is a fallacy.
I don't create strawman (not my style). I'm speaking directly to you.
SIN and DEATH are not persons. GOD is a person.
Right, you said this earlier and you're right. We agree that sin and death are not persons, but I trust you appreciate when figures of speech are being used. I really don't want to have to do this again with you.
Pointing to SIN and DEATH as bondholders who must be PAID a ransom is FALLACIOUS.
This is known as a strawman argument, @Terry. Please cut it out. No one mentioned "bondholders," but you.
Nobody can pay DEATH anything because DEATH is not a PERSON.
You were right when you said this the first time; you were right when you said this the second time. You are right again, @Terry: Death is not a person. But as a figure of speech, death can be personified.
The whole argument about GRACE is poetic nonsense and a plot device to give Jesus special status by bible writers who are really bad
Explain to me what you believe "grace" to be. One example of the use of this word in the Bible is at Ephesians 2:8 (KJV): "For by grace are ye saved through faith." I have no idea what you believe this word to mean.
@Heaven:
You say: But it is through faith in Christ Jesus that mankind can be set free "from the law of sin and of death."
This statement also says that all those people born in between Adam and Jesus can never be set free because they never could have had faith in him because he wasn't alive and preaching. No one knew of this guy named Jesus. I guarantee you there are people today on this Earth who have never heard of the guy either. So all those people are screwed. Yeah, sounds right to me. (not)
Is this what you understand the apostle Paul's statement to mean at Romans 8:2, or just my statement?
@godrulz:
Rom. 1 shows that all men are universally condemned and without excuse, even if they have not heard of Jesus. God also judges according to light we have and will do the right thing (Gen. 18:25).
Perhaps this is what you take away from reading Romans 1, but as all mankind is the offspring of Adam, they are condemned by virtue of their having been conceived, every one of us, in sin. You say the fact that all mankind is condemned is "without excuse," but clearly our having inherited sin from Adam is "the excuse," the reason that all mankind has suffered sin and death since the founding of the world. I have no idea the criteria on which your statement here is based, but it isn't based on anything that you read in Romans 1. Also, Genesis 18:25 provides Abraham's sentiment that Jehovah, "the Judge of all the earth," is always going to do what is right, but it says nothing about God's making judgments "according to light," which makes me think that this statement was just thrown in, for this verse doesn't support this portion of your statement. What is it supposed to mean exactly?
Babies lack moral/mental capacity and go to heaven based on their non-rejection of Christ.
There is no scriptural basis for this statement about babies going to heaven. This idea is fanciful at best, but salvation -- whether it be to eternal life in heaven or to eternal life here on earth -- is conditional. As John 3:18 explains: "He that exercises faith in [Jesus] is not to be judged. He that does not exercise faith [in Jesus] has been judged already, [why?] because he has not exercised faith in the name of the only-begotten Son of God."
This statement of Jesus' doesn't stand alone, but there are Jesus other statements that Jesus made that make clear what the basis for salvation is, such as his statement at Mark 16:16: "He that believes and is baptized will be saved." (Mark 16:16).
Notice Jesus here indicates that at least two (2) things are necessary for salvation: Thing #1: "He that believes..." is one of them, and Thing #2: "... and is baptized" is the other one. According to you, babies ostensibly lack the moral and mental capacity of an adult to make decisions as to their faith, so even though they do not meet the criteria Jesus lays out at Mark 16:16 for salvation, you totally ignore what Jesus says in this verse in order to lay out what you believe ought to be the case as far as young children, infants, "babies," are concerned. It would seem apparent that you have for whatever reason adopted a sentiment that attaches innocence to babies, that makes them guiltless and not just by virtue of birth alone, but due to your judging them to lack the moral and mental capacity of someone older, like an adult. I'm not sure where you would draw the line between babyhood and adulthood, but I suppose there is an arbitrary line in your mind that separate the culpability of a baby from that of an adult, maybe at age 2, maybe at age 5, 8 or 10; I don't know, but even a 10- or 15-year-old is not an adult, so I would have no idea where you would draw this line between babyhood and adulthood.
But Jesus didn't specifically speak in terms of the age of an individual in what he says at Mark 16:16 about who "will be saved"; age wasn't his criteria, although technically one might conclude that age is inferred, for he says that Thing #1, if one "believes," and Thing #2, gets "baptized," then that individual "will be saved." The question is, how old does a baby need to be before it can satisfy Thing #1? A week old newborn cannot gives its assent to belief in and acceptance of Jesus' ransom and arguably neither can a three-month-old, a one-year-old or a five-year-old give indication of their acceptance in faith of Jesus' ransom.
Can a five-year-old indicate its preference to be raised a Catholic, a Jehovah's Witness, an atheist independent of what its parents might be? I don't think so and you don't either. So, then, how can you conclude from Jesus' words at John 3:18 and Mark 16:16 that babies are going to heaven, that babies are going to be saved on account of the fact that they are babies and lack moral and mental capacity to make the decisions of an adult as to their faith?
The apostle Paul spells this same thing out in a different way at Romans 10:9: "For if you publicly declare that 'word in your own mouth,' that Jesus is Lord, and exercise faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead, you will be saved." Note here that Paul makes clear that belief in the ransom is manifested by our making public declaration of the "word ... that Jesus is Lord," but he also indicates that one must "exercise faith in [their] heart that God raised him up from the dead" in order to be saved. Again, a baby cannot make such a public declaration about Jesus or exercise faith in his name by getting baptized, so a baby would be disqualified from salvation since it would fail to meet the stringent requirements that are necessary for salvation either in heaven or right here on earth.
The Bible is clear about people like you and me who have heard the gospel.
Yes, it is clear, but not to you, for you are suggesting here that other people -- babies -- that have not heard the gospel because they are just too young to have comprehended the meaning that attaches to it get into heaven based on a different standard than the standard by which those who have heard the gospel get into heaven. There aren't two standards for salvation, one for babies and one for other people "like you and me who have heard the gospel." In fact, in another place -- at 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 -- we read that those not being saved are going to be "[1] those who do not know God and [2] those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus."
Since babies do not know God, it is clear that they would fall into this first category, along with atheists and religionists of all stripes that don't know God. It is also clear that those who have heard the gospel, but refuse to obey "the good news about our Lord Jesus" would fall into this second category, and this would include baptized persons as well as those that have studied the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses if after having heard the good news they have refused to obey the precepts and principles of the good news. "These very ones," the apostle says. "will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction."
I would harken to what occurred back in 1919 BC when the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. According to the account, no babies at all were saved from God's annihilation of the people of those cities, and unless you wish to advance the notion that there were no young children, no babies living in Sodom and in Gomorrah when God's judgment came against those two cities, then, clearly, if no such standard as to the lack of moral and mental capability of those babies that all died back during the 20th century BC, then there is no reason to think that any such standard as to the moral and mental incapacity of babies exists today.
Those babies during the 20th century BC were conceived in sin as much so as the babies during our 21th century AD have been conceived in sin, they all of them being the sinful offspring of Adam that have died and will die as a consequence of their having incurred the penalty for Adam's sin, though not through any fault of their own, which is death.
As to the Old Testament, people were saved based on trusting YHWH and His provision/plan at the time.
This is not true. Jehovah God entered into a covenant with the patriarch Abraham, but was Abraham saved at that time? No. Jacob, Moses, Joshua and David trusted in Jehovah, but were any of these men saved at that time? No. Why "no"? Because the sacred secret it was not granted to them by the Father "to understand the sacred secrets of the kingdom of the heavens"
Because to those people, it wasn't granted to them "to understand the sacred secrets of the kingdom of the heavens." It is a fact that Jehovah's Witnesses today are helping people to see how the sacred secret of God, "which has from the indefinite past been hidden in God," being administered through the Christian arrangement. (Ephesians 3:9) Jesus first made known things to his disciples that had been "hidden since the founding" of the world. (Matthew 13:35)
This means that these sacred secrets had been hidden from Abraham, from Jacob, from Moses, Joshua and David, even though they had put their faith in God, for they had been given absolutely any idea about what was coming, that possessed no knowledge to the effect that God was going to pardon their sins on the basis of Jesus' ransom. They had no clue about this "sacred secret," that God was going to be taking this action toward mankind in releasing them from bondage to sin and death over the ransom sacrifice of one man, Jesus, absolutely no idea about what God had in store for them and for mankind. No one mentioned in the Old Testament was saved. We know this to be the case, because Jesus himself said that God had "hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones" and had only through Christ "revealed them." (Luke 10:21)
They had the shadows/types and we have reality in Christ (Heb. 1:1-3). They looked forward to the cross by faith and we look back on the finished work by faith.
These pre-Christian men and women of faith did not have any shadows or types, but they lived in them, for which Christians came to live when they had become a reality. You speak here of the "finished work" of Christ, but Abraham, Sarah, Moses, Rahab, David, Ruth, none of these people looked forward to any "cross." You've made this up.
Calling on the name of Jesus (Rom. 10:9-10; Phil. 2:5-11) is calling on the name of YHWH.
I take it that this is your opinion, but the fact that you have here conflated the "name of Jesus" with the "name of YHWH," that is to say, Jehovah God, indicates that you don't know what the name of Jesus represents, for the name of Jesus, whose name, or office, stands for the ransom he paid on behalf of mankind, doesn't represent the name of Jehovah, whose name, or office, does not stand for the ransom, but stands for justice. You have here cited Romans 10:9, 10, and Philippians 2:5-11, as if these scriptures support your notion about one calling upon "the name of Jesus" being the same as one calling upon "the name of YHWH"; they don't.
The OT saints called on God as Savior and NT saints call on God in Christ as Savior (Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12; Jn. 3:16).
Again, as before, you decide here to cite John 14:6, Acts 4:12 and John 3:16, but not one of these scriptures mention a thing about any "OT saints" -- I have no idea to whom you are referring by this phrase -- or talking about any "God in Christ," which seems to be a trinitarian expression. John 14:6 indicates that Jesus is the only way to the Father; Acts 4:12 indicates that no one can be saved by any other name than Jesus' name; John 3:16 indicates that God's love for the world moved him to give his "only-begotten Son," which is a reference to the ransom, to save those "exercising faith" in Jesus.
Before Pentecost 33 AD, when the spirit was first poured out upon Jesus' disciples, there had been no saints, even though mention had prophetically been made of how the "saints of the most High" (KJV) or "the holy ones of the Supreme One" (NWT) at Daniel 7:22, would "[take] possession of the kingdom itself" as a future event. Please explain your reference to "OT saints" and why you cited John 14:6, Acts 4:12 and John 3:16, when none of these scriptures refer to such.
In all this, all believers in all generations are saved by grace through faith apart from works in God's revelation/provision at their time.
What exactly are you saying here? You refer to "all believers in all generations" being "saved by grace," but I'm not clear on how it is you believe believers to be saved by grace. While Ephesians 2:8, 9, does say that Christians are "by grace ... saved by faith," I'm not sure if you would call faith "the gift of God," or grace "the gift of God," because this passage also says that salvation is "not of works."
You added to this the words "in God's revelation/provision at their time," but I'm unclear on what these words mean in the context of the point you were making based on Ephesians 2:8, 9, which mentions nothing at all about God's "revelation." Two questions: (1) Do you believe faith to be "the gift of God" or do you believe grace to be "the gift of God"? (2) What exactly did you mean by the words "apart from works in God's revelation/provision at their time"?
We are in the Church Age, so leave the judging to God and embrace our gospel, the power of God (Rom. 1:16).
To what judgment do you refer when you say "leave the judging to God"? We are here discussing the ransom and yet here you would seem to be discussing something else. While it's true that the gospel of Christ is the power of God "to everyone having faith," please explain what you meant by when you stated that "we are in the Church Age, so leave the judging to God and embrace our gospel"? I am asking you what the relevance of this statement of yours is.
@djeggnog

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

Share this