Gospel vs. Ransom

[Todd Erickson]

I grew up within a church whose entire supposition of the Gospel of Christ was that Christ came and died for us and paid for our sins, so that we didn't have to go to hell.

The result of this viewpoint was that that community put all of their time into moral living so as to maintain that salvation, while simultaneously seeking to go out and convince others that they also needed to repent of their sin and escape hell.

I find this problematic at this time in my life, because I see Christ's death and resurrection as proof of the Gospel (first fruits) rather than encapsulating it.

I believe that Christ came to show us how A. we could be like Him, which is what we were designed/created to be, and B. that this would actually be much more fulfilling, and C. the death and resurrection was the proof/evidence/provisioning for this.

So witnessing, for me, isn't about making a logical argument to convince people that they've broken a moral code, that they need to be sorry, and that they need to believe in an invisible being somewhere who will "dangle them like spiders over the flames of hell"; rather than Christ came to rescue us from the emptiness and terror of our lives and bring us beauty and wonder and freedom and life.

I find that if my focus is on salvation and the cross, that there isn't much room for life. There isn't much room for growth, except where it provides for memorizing bible verses, or learnign doctrinal stances, etc.

But when my focus is all of Christ, and how He was promised, I get the character of God, and the eternal life I regain that Adam lost, and how it gives this life here and now meaning and character... agape, the command and lifestyle of Christ, shapes everything I am and will be, and leaves little room for sin, because sin is contrary to that identity.

But when I try to talk about this in church, I almost invariably A. offend people, B. come off as condesceding, or C. get blank looks, and people assume I'm just talking about salvation in a flowery manner, or an aspect of sanctification that they're already doing with their sunday school activities.

It's very frustrating.

If the focus of my life is actually being like christ, then if from year to year I'm essentially the same person, I'm doing something wrong.

But if the focus of my life is being saved and moral, then it's fine to be the same from year to year, because I'm still moral and justified.

[Shea Zellweger]

I think when we talk about what Christ came and did, we miss the point if we zero in on one specific aspect. As a whole, Jesus lived a life which was perfect in regard to the Law, thereby fulfilling it and making a way for us to follow him. He quite literally set the standard, and IMHO it is our life's goal to live as he lived- a goal which we will never accomplish, but should always strive toward. So if I'm the exact same person I was a year ago, either I am not pressing onward toward the standard of Christ, or I am of the opinion that I have somehow "arrived."

[Ryan Scott]

If the focus of my life is actually being like christ, then if from year to year I'm essentially the same person, I'm doing something wrong.

But if the focus of my life is being saved and moral, then it's fine to be the same from year to year, because I'm still moral and justified.


This is really where this issue is felt practically. I think perhaps its a little more important to speak in terms of relationship rather than transaction. Jesus Christ came to restore right relationship and to show us the kind of relationship with God we were designed to have. Being a relationship, this must continue to grow and deepen. If it were merely a transaction - death for sin, payment for debt - it's over. However we can't entirely exclude that perspective simply because something important happened and is finished. We just have to remember that while Christ's action was the end of something, it is also the beginning of something else.

[Randy Wise]

I grew up within a church whose entire supposition of the Gospel of Christ was that Christ came and died for us and paid for our sins, so that we didn't have to go to hell.



It certainly is my perspective that Jesus was how God chose to forgive our sin and all have sinned. God has shown He does punish sin whether people think He is required to do so and as below I can see why Jesus would be taught as One who takes away our guilt. I know there are several theories though.

We read in 1 John

5This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. 7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all[b] sin.
8If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.

[b] 1 John 1:7 Or every

[Benjamin Burch]

I grew up within a church whose entire supposition of the Gospel of Christ was that Christ came and died for us and paid for our sins, so that we didn't have to go to hell.

The result of this viewpoint was that that community put all of their time into moral living so as to maintain that salvation, while simultaneously seeking to go out and convince others that they also needed to repent of their sin and escape hell.

I find this problematic at this time in my life, because I see Christ's death and resurrection as proof of the Gospel (first fruits) rather than encapsulating it.

I believe that Christ came to show us how A. we could be like Him, which is what we were designed/created to be, and B. that this would actually be much more fulfilling, and C. the death and resurrection was the proof/evidence/provisioning for this.

So witnessing, for me, isn't about making a logical argument to convince people that they've broken a moral code, that they need to be sorry, and that they need to believe in an invisible being somewhere who will "dangle them like spiders over the flames of hell"; rather than Christ came to rescue us from the emptiness and terror of our lives and bring us beauty and wonder and freedom and life.

I find that if my focus is on salvation and the cross, that there isn't much room for life. There isn't much room for growth, except where it provides for memorizing bible verses, or learnign doctrinal stances, etc.

But when my focus is all of Christ, and how He was promised, I get the character of God, and the eternal life I regain that Adam lost, and how it gives this life here and now meaning and character... agape, the command and lifestyle of Christ, shapes everything I am and will be, and leaves little room for sin, because sin is contrary to that identity.

But when I try to talk about this in church, I almost invariably A. offend people, B. come off as condesceding, or C. get blank looks, and people assume I'm just talking about salvation in a flowery manner, or an aspect of sanctification that they're already doing with their sunday school activities.

It's very frustrating.

If the focus of my life is actually being like christ, then if from year to year I'm essentially the same person, I'm doing something wrong.

But if the focus of my life is being saved and moral, then it's fine to be the same from year to year, because I'm still moral and justified.

I think a lot of this comes from a strictly protestant Western view of Christ, Christianity, and the Gospel which is fed by way too much Lutheran Justification Theory and not not enough Eastern Fathers and Theosis. We shirked one tradition for another and called it "sola scriptura" and read our tradition into Scripture at the expense of a rich theological tradition.

[Todd Erickson]

The road to salvation is presented as:

A. Convince people that they have sinned against God, and that they need to repent.
B. Believe that Jesus is the son of God, and died for their sins.
C. Testify that Christ is Lord

But this doesn't appear to be biblical. In fact, the main justification for this process is John the Baptist, but he was speaking specfiically to Jews, who had all memorized the first 5 books of the OT by the time they were 10, and were immersed in the law, commentary, and practiced. When they were called to reptentnce, John was following in the path of the prophets...they knew precisely what he was saying.

Paul, on the other hand, doesn't call the gentiles he's witnessing to to repent first. Instead, he preaches Christ, and Christ crucified, with both words and his life. When people accept Christ, they then come to repentence as a reaction, and they witness the testimony of Christ in the body of Christ around them, and it becomes their lifestyle as well.

In this case, the Romans Road appears to function poorly. If you have convince somebody that your system of philsophy has meaning for them before you convince them that they've broken it and this has meaning to their lives, you really don't have a lot of room for calling to reptentance, unless your selling point is "spiders over the flames of hell".

It seems much more a case of "Jesus Christ loves you, and wants a better existence for you here and now, and so do I..."

But not calling them to reptentance first seems unfair, I guess, and gets labeled as cheap grace. We have to make them work for their salvation, at least a little...

[Ryan Scott]

I find it amusing that protestant tradition, which began by a rejection of hierarchical interpretation of scripture has now replaced the inherited Catholic teaching with inherited protestant ones. Much of common evangelical theology today comes mainly through the Church and less through direct study of scripture. Perhaps that's why we're experiencing a new reformation of sorts and a movement to bypass traditional approaches.

[Billy Cox]

I grew up within a church whose entire supposition of the Gospel of Christ was that Christ came and died for us and paid for our sins, so that we didn't have to go to hell.

The result of this viewpoint was that that community put all of their time into moral living so as to maintain that salvation, while simultaneously seeking to go out and convince others that they also needed to repent of their sin and escape hell.

I find this problematic at this time in my life, because I see Christ's death and resurrection as proof of the Gospel (first fruits) rather than encapsulating it.

I see it as problematic too, but I go one step farther. I see Christ's life and resurrection as proof of the Gospel. Jesus' death is important but is really just incidental to his becoming a mortal person.

I am beginning to think that a fixation on the death of Christ is spiritually toxic. The cross is a poison, leeching shame and guilt into our hearts and robbing us of the joy of his resurrection.


I find that if my focus is on salvation and the cross, that there isn't much room for life. There isn't much room for growth, except where it provides for memorizing bible verses, or learnign doctrinal stances, etc.

I recently watched the movie 'Amistad' which is quite dark, but I laughed out loud at the scene where some church people come to see the captured slaves and the slaves comment that the church people look utterly miserable. I think that a somber faith is the fruit of a spiritually bankrupt atonement theory.


But when I try to talk about this in church, I almost invariably A. offend people, B. come off as condesceding, or C. get blank looks, and people assume I'm just talking about salvation in a flowery manner, or an aspect of sanctification that they're already doing with their sunday school activities.


I can relate to this. I cope by limiting myself to small talk until I know that a particular person has begun to question the church's proclamation that 2+2=5.

[Larry Parsons]

I believe Jesus came 1. To fulfilled the Abraham covenant. 2. To bring in a New Covenant and 3 To redeem the salve of Satan. Lik the song said He sought us and bought us with his redeeming blood.
Thanks
Larry

[Todd Erickson]

I believe Jesus came 1. To fulfilled the Abraham covenant. 2. To bring in a New Covenant and 3 To redeem the salve of Satan. Lik the song said He sought us and bought us with his redeeming blood.
Thanks
Larry

So, no Gospel then. Gotcha.

[Randy Wise]

So witnessing, for me, isn't about making a logical argument to convince people that they've broken a moral code, that they need to be sorry, and that they need to believe in an invisible being somewhere who will "dangle them like spiders over the flames of hell"; rather than Christ came to rescue us from the emptiness and terror of our lives and bring us beauty and wonder and freedom and life.

I find that if my focus is on salvation and the cross, that there isn't much room for life. There isn't much room for growth, except where it provides for memorizing bible verses, or learnign doctrinal stances, etc.

But when my focus is all of Christ, and how He was promised, I get the character of God, and the eternal life I regain that Adam lost, and how it gives this life here and now meaning and character... agape, the command and lifestyle of Christ, shapes everything I am and will be, and leaves little room for sin, because sin is contrary to that identity.

But when I try to talk about this in church, I almost invariably A. offend people, B. come off as condesceding, or C. get blank looks, and people assume I'm just talking about salvation in a flowery manner, or an aspect of sanctification that they're already doing with their sunday school activities.

It's very frustrating.

If the focus of my life is actually being like christ, then if from year to year I'm essentially the same person, I'm doing something wrong.

But if the focus of my life is being saved and moral, then it's fine to be the same from year to year, because I'm still moral and justified.

Witnessing isn't about "me". Its about them. (those that are on the outside) Why get into methods? You could simply point out that one could ask Jesus for living water. But somehow the "understanding" needs to be conveyed that apart from "Jesus" we have no eternal life.

Now if I hunger and thirst for righteousness couldn't I just ask the Lord to be "filled"?

Randy

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

While I agree that the Gospel is more than just ransom, I think it's unbiblical to throw the concept away to focus on something else. After all, if not for the Bible's use of the term in association with Christ's ministry, there would be little or no connection to it.

I think that viewing Christ's death as payment for our sins is one way out of several that we can think of the cross.

Matthew 20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

1 Timothy 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men— the testimony given in its proper time.

Hebrews 9:15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance— now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

[Todd Erickson]

Yes, but why does the focus have to be the cross?

[Hans Deventer]

While I agree that the Gospel is more than just ransom, I think it's unbiblical to throw the concept away to focus on something else. After all, if not for the Bible's use of the term in association with Christ's ministry, there would be little or no connection to it.

I think that viewing Christ's death as payment for our sins is one way out of several that we can think of the cross.

Matthew 20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

1 Timothy 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men— the testimony given in its proper time.

Hebrews 9:15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance— now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

Scott, I accept the idea of ransom. I do not accept "payment for sins", for it logically leads to either limited atonement or universalism.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Scott, I accept the idea of ransom. I do not accept "payment for sins", for it logically leads to either limited atonement or universalism.

I'm not sure I understand but I'm not surprised that you accept the idea Jesus gave himself in "ransom" for us.

[Hans Deventer]

I'm not sure I understand but I'm not surprised that you accept the idea Jesus gave himself in "ransom" for us.

OK. Let me explain. I have several problems with the idea of "payment for sins".

Who is getting paid? The devil? Well, if he's been paid, then either we all go free for he no longer has a claim on us, or the payment wasn't sufficient and only a limited number of people go free. The latter option is problematic for a Wesleyan, but the former is universalism which doesn't align with our theology either.

If God is getting paid, then we are free from our debtor. But wait, this debtor actually wants a relationship with us! He doesn't want us to be free from Him, on the contrary! Wrong image again.

The idea of ransom is not so much a payment for sins, as a price paid to liberate people who were in a situation they could never escape on their own. Boaz in the book of Ruth is a good example.

Surely we stand guilty before God. But there is nothing in the world that can pay this guilt. (Think of Matthew 18). God, however, forgives us in His great mercy, showing this by sending Jesus who suffered on the cross on our behalf, if only we accept it.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

OK. Let me explain. I have several problems with the idea of "payment for sins".

Who is getting paid? The devil? Well, if he's been paid, then either we all go free for he no longer has a claim on us, or the payment wasn't sufficient and only a limited number of people go free. The latter option is problematic for a Wesleyan, but the former is universalism which doesn't align with our theology either.

If God is getting paid, then we are free from our debtor. But wait, this debtor actually wants a relationship with us! He doesn't want us to be free from Him, on the contrary! Wrong image again.

The idea of ransom is not so much a payment for sins, as a price paid to liberate people who were in a situation they could never escape on their own. Boaz in the book of Ruth is a good example.

Surely we stand guilty before God. But there is nothing in the world that can pay this guilt. (Think of Matthew 18). God, however, forgives us in His great mercy, showing this by sending Jesus who suffered on the cross on our behalf, if only we accept it.

I can't really argue with you, but I know that Jesus, himself, used the term "ransom" at least that's what I see as I work in English. Without redefining the word "ransom" I don't see how you can argue against "payment."

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

[Hans Deventer]

I can't really argue with you, but I know that Jesus, himself, used the term "ransom" at least that's what I see as I work in English. Without redefining the word "ransom" I don't see how you can argue against "payment."

Ransom:


the act of freeing from captivity or punishment


Because I see it as the latter, which I think is the image the Bible uses, and I've continuously objected against "payment for sins".

But go ahead, who's getting paid for our sins? And is the payment for our sins sufficient? Or not?

The point is, Scott, the image of "payment for sins" is problematic because it isn't really Biblical and because it is way to judicial in stead of relational. As I said, it logically leads to universalism or limited atonement. Hence my problems with it, for I think both must be avoided.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Because I see it as the latter, which I think is the image the Bible uses, and I've continuously objected against "payment for sins".

But go ahead, who's getting paid for our sins? And is the payment for our sins sufficient? Or not?

The point is, Scott, the image of "payment for sins" is problematic because it isn't really Biblical and because it is way to judicial in stead of relational. As I said, it logically leads to universalism or limited atonement. Hence my problems with it, for I think both must be avoided.

How do you deal with Acts 20:28? Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

Or: 1 Peter 1:18-19 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.

While I don't think "bought with his own blood" is a complete description, I do think it's a biblical one.

[Benjamin Burch]

While I agree that the Gospel is more than just ransom, I think it's unbiblical to throw the concept away to focus on something else. After all, if not for the Bible's use of the term in association with Christ's ministry, there would be little or no connection to it.

I think that viewing Christ's death as payment for our sins is one way out of several that we can think of the cross.

Matthew 20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

1 Timothy 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men— the testimony given in its proper time.

Hebrews 9:15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance— now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

The difficulty here, Scott, is that in none of these verses does the image of "payment" appear, and no party is ever mentioned who might be receiving that payment. The party which held us captive in the Hebrews passage is "sin," and therefore it would seem that if a ransom price is being paid to any party, it would need to be that party. However, that hardly seems to be the way the verse reads naturally.

In Timothy it seems possible to get that idea, since Christ's giving himself as a ransom is bound up with his being a mediator between those he died as a ransom for and God. However, this reading would be very confusing, since an actual ransom payment does not carry mediating power or authority. Also, this way of viewing "mediator" would be extremely low and rather inconsistent with both Paul's general Christology and the Christology of later Pauline tradition (see Colossians 1).

The Timothy passage is hard to work out exactly what's going on, though it seems liberative in function. However, the other two references are quite clear - Christ's death functions as that which liberates those in slavery, but without specifying it as a price being paid to any hostile power or party owed a due. It seems that it is an action which liberates, not a price paid. This would seem consistent with other "redemption" language elsewhere - such as Galatians 3:13, where the act of redemption is achieved by the assumption of (and presumably termination of) the "cursed" state from which the freed parties are redeemed.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

The difficulty here, Scott, is that in none of these verses does the image of "payment" appear, and no party is ever mentioned who might be receiving that payment. The party which held us captive in the Hebrews passage is "sin," and therefore it would seem that if a ransom price is being paid to any party, it would need to be that party. However, that hardly seems to be the way the verse reads naturally.

In Timothy it seems possible to get that idea, since Christ's giving himself as a ransom is bound up with his being a mediator between those he died as a ransom for and God. However, this reading would be very confusing, since an actual ransom payment does not carry mediating power or authority. Also, this way of viewing "mediator" would be extremely low and rather inconsistent with both Paul's general Christology and the Christology of later Pauline tradition (see Colossians 1).

The Timothy passage is hard to work out exactly what's going on, though it seems liberative in function. However, the other two references are quite clear - Christ's death functions as that which liberates those in slavery, but without specifying it as a price being paid to any hostile power or party owed a due. It seems that it is an action which liberates, not a price paid. This would seem consistent with other "redemption" language elsewhere - such as Galatians 3:13, where the act of redemption is achieved by the assumption of (and presumably termination of) the "cursed" state from which the freed parties are redeemed.

Benjamin, how do you deal with Revelation 5:9: And they sang a new song: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.

[Hans Deventer]

Scott, Ben gave a good answer, but I've yet to hear who you think is getting paid. We've been ransomed, purchased etc. But I don't think anyone got paid.

A discussion needs to go both ways, answers have to be given both ways.

[Billie Goodson]

It seems we get into difficulty because of the terms "ransom" and "payment" and how we interpret them.

Scott quoted Acts 20:28 where it says "Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood."

The word for "purchased" is "peripoieō", which means:


1) to make to remain over

2) to reserve, to leave or keep safe, lay by

3) to make to remain for one's self

4) to preserve for one's self

5) to get for one's self, purchase

Only definition 5 seems to carry the idea of a financial transaction -- which is how we almost seem to view it when we talk about it being a "price". Another verse that uses the same word is 1 Timothy 3:13 where we read:

For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Even ransom can be only defined to mean liberation, not specific to a simple transaction-based exchange.

I still get stuck on Clark Pinnock's statement that the cross has more to do with making God acceptable to us, rather than us acceptable to God. When I consider who moved toward the cross first, I get stuck with the idea that it was His grace that paved the way -- he did it in spite of my sin.

[Benjamin Burch]

Benjamin, how do you deal with Revelation 5:9: And they sang a new song: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.

I've yet to do ANY serious study in Revelation, so I'm not quite able yet to say much on it. I don't have the time currently (have to leave for work in 10 minutes) to give it any serious look. However, I still don't see a party being offered the payment. I'd start there.

[Hans Deventer]

Or: 1 Peter 1:18-19 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.

So something was paid by a lamb? Or at least, by One as a lamb, carrying that image? Well, surely you know that a lamb in the OT was sacrificed but never paid anything. God forgave, based on the sincerity of the worshipper as shown by the sacrifice of the lamb.

The key is our identification with the lamb, or in the NT, with the Lamb of God. See Romans 6.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Scott, Ben gave a good answer, but I've yet to hear who you think is getting paid. We've been ransomed, purchased etc. But I don't think anyone got paid.

A discussion needs to go both ways, answers have to be given both ways.

I think you guys are being too legalistic in what ransom means. I think that since Jesus uses the term and that it is repeated elsewhere in the Bible several times and that since the idea of "purchasing" is also used in more than one place that your insisting I respond with "who is being paid" is begging the question. The Bible teaches us that Jesus ransomed us with his blood. To focus on "who was paid" ignores the illustration being used in multiple instances.

I think the writers of the Bible are more comfortable with the idea of a ransom being paid than you are.

Perhaps it would be better for you to be less legalistic about this and accept the fact that one way the shed blood of Christ can be viewed as a ransom used to purchase our release from the bondage of sin. Once that is admitted, you can move on to say that this is only one picture used in the Bible and that there are, in your opinion, others that are better.

Well, you don't have to, but that's what I do.

[Billy Cox]

Surely we stand guilty before God. But there is nothing in the world that can pay this guilt. (Think of Matthew 18). God, however, forgives us in His great mercy, showing this by sending Jesus who suffered on the cross on our behalf, if only we accept it.

If God has forgiven us, then why would he still require payment/ransom? Recall the parable of the unmerciful servant. The servant inexplicably owes the king more than he can possibly repay and the king has mercy on him and forgives the debt. The king didn't even ask the servant for a partial payment, but forgives him. The only requirement seems to be that the servant 'go and do likewise'...which he immediately fails to do.

[Todd Erickson]

I think maybe there's an idea here that the ransom was paid to us, against our own ideas of guilt and the law. We had to be freed from the law ourselves, we demanded a payment, a sacrifice, and so God provided it, because otherwise we would not be able to accept it.

I think that Jesus used the language that was available, not because it was a perfect metaphor, but because it was what people could accept at the time.

[Billie Goodson]

.. one way the shed blood of Christ can be viewed as a ransom used to purchase our release from the bondage of sin. Once that is admitted, you can move on to say that this is only one picture used in the Bible and that there are, in your opinion, others that are better.



For me, I don't have a problem with the way that is worded. It doesn't say anything that makes it seem as if God had to purchase me from the devil. Todd made a statement that I think fits well within the ideas expressed once by Dr. Tracy in a sermon I have heard that was so important to how I began the shift from a vengeful and God of wrath view to being able to see a prodigal Father who recklessly sought me.

[Andy Mistak]

What if payment was offered to those we have sinned against? If I have wronged you, Christ's blood has paid the ransom to you for my sins against you (or vice versa).

[Billie Goodson]

For me, I don't have a problem with the way that is worded.

Not that my approval is significant in this discussion at all - apologies for having worded it that way.

[Hans Deventer]

If God has forgiven us, then why would he still require payment/ransom? Recall the parable of the unmerciful servant. The servant inexplicably owes the king more than he can possibly repay and the king has mercy on him and forgives the debt. The king didn't even ask the servant for a partial payment, but forgives him. The only requirement seems to be that the servant 'go and do likewise'...which he immediately fails to do.

Exactly, Billy. I already referred to Matthew 18. BTW, the payment, of course, is God's. And why? Because forgiveness hurts, deeply hurts! THAT is what is being paid. Grace isn't cheap. You pay a price to offer forgiveness. That is the way we are being ransomed, purchased etc.

Hey, I'm grateful for this thread! I didn't think of this before but it makes perfect sense. Forgiving us costed God so dearly, it actually took His life. Now that's a payment if any.


Scott, I'm sorry if you see this kind of thinking as legalistic. In my view, it is the contrary, it is totally relational and it is exactly the non-relational concepts surrounding the idea of "paying for our sins" that I object to, since they logically make no sense.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Scott, I'm sorry if you see this kind of thinking as legalistic. In my view, it is the contrary, it is totally relational and it is exactly the non-relational concepts surrounding the idea of "paying for our sins" that I object to, since they logically make no sense.

Hans, I didn't say that. I said that you guys are being too legalistic in defining what "ransom for sins" means, especially in light of numerous passages that say it that way. I specifically added that rather than skating around some obvious passages that use this language, it is better to acknowledge them and then, if one desires, to move on to some of the richer approaches given in other passages.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, I didn't say that. I said that you guys are being too legalistic in defining what "ransom for sins" means, especially in light of numerous passages that say it that way. I specifically added that rather than skating around some obvious passages that use this language, it is better to acknowledge them and then, if one desires, to move on to some of the richer approaches given in other passages.

I'm sorry again. I only tried to correct the obsession in the Western Church with legal images and how that has distorted our interpretations. My apologies.

[Todd Erickson]

Hans, I didn't say that. I said that you guys are being too legalistic in defining what "ransom for sins" means, especially in light of numerous passages that say it that way. I specifically added that rather than skating around some obvious passages that use this language, it is better to acknowledge them and then, if one desires, to move on to some of the richer approaches given in other passages.

I think that our point is that A. when the word is put into english as "ransom", it's often because of how the KJV scholars, who were in a very legalistic culture, interpreted the term, rather than because of what it necessarily meant contextually in the original Aramaic and B. Christ used the best term at the time for the people he was speaking to, rather than the best term for all of time, and C. we find that the term doesn't work as well now, and we find that when we speak soley in terms of things like ransom and payment, we reduce the overall work of Christ to a transaction, because that's how people's mind's work, and so we want to find different terms and paradigms to deal more honestly with what is happening, to guide people into a better, more life giving way of thinking about it.

Words are important that way. Our theology is informed as much by the words we use, as the ideas behind the theology.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I think that our point is that A. when the word is put into english as "ransom", it's often because of how the KJV scholars, who were in a very legalistic culture, interpreted the term, rather than because of what it necessarily meant contextually in the original Aramaic and B. Christ used the best term at the time for the people he was speaking to, rather than the best term for all of time, and C. we find that the term doesn't work as well now, and we find that when we speak soley in terms of things like ransom and payment, we reduce the overall work of Christ to a transaction, because that's how people's mind's work, and so we want to find different terms and paradigms to deal more honestly with what is happening, to guide people into a better, more life giving way of thinking about it.

Words are important that way. Our theology is informed as much by the words we use, as the ideas behind the theology.

At the same time, we can't skirt around passages that use the "ransom" approach because we think others say it in ways we like better. So (and this is the last time I'm going here) a better approach, in my opinion, is to go straight through: when we were lost and bound in our sins, held captive by sin without hope of escape Jesus ransomed us by his own blood. By that precious blood he bought our freedom. Why did he do that? Because God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son.

I think that message speaks to people's hearts. I don't think it leaves people thinking it is "illogical" or that I need to somehow identify who it is who received the ransom. I stay right in the language of the Bible, use the "ransom" terminology and point to the love of God in providing a way out of sin and to himself.

[Hans Deventer]

I think that message speaks to people's hearts. I don't think it leaves people thinking it is "illogical" or that I need to somehow identify who it is who received the ransom. I stay right in the language of the Bible, use the "ransom" terminology and point to the love of God in providing a way out of sin and to himself.

Scott, by now it should be obvious to anyone that we mean well and yet we're totally talking past one another. Let's move on, perhaps one day we can come back to the topic and understand one another.

[Todd Erickson]

At the same time, we can't skirt around passages that use the "ransom" approach because we think others say it in ways we like better. So (and this is the last time I'm going here) a better approach, in my opinion, is to go straight through: when we were lost and bound in our sins, held captive by sin without hope of escape Jesus ransomed us by his own blood. By that precious blood he bought our freedom. Why did he do that? Because God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son.


I think the problem with saying this is that people wind up automatically filling in who we're being ransomed from. I've seen this in all of the churches I've been in in my life.

In some places, God ransomed us from Satan, and people live in a dualistic world where everything is about a struggle between God and Satan, and everything in their life is this great battled between these two powers, even though Satan is never presented in the bible as anything close to equal or a real threat to God.

In some places, God ransomed us from the destruction that He wanted to rain on us, but this creates a worldview where God is essentially an angry, vengeful God who hates us, and who loves us in spite of Himself, and has to rescue us from Himself. This creates a very difficult concept of God for people to grapple with, and tends to lead to a lot of legalism and maintaining salvation.

I think that it may be most honest to say that God ransomed us from ourselves, that we had stolen ourselves from God, from the relationship we were supposed to have from Him, and instead entered into a state of selfishness and destruction, and God had to pay this price in order to wrest our attention from ourselves so that He could truly enter in and rescue us. I find this to be the most true way of looking at the situation, and thus how it incorporates the rest of Christ's ministry, but it's not a popular way of looking at things, because people feel that it places too much power in our own hands. Which is kind of a circular argument, if you think about it.

...

I've also begun to wonder if Satan isn't another way of talking about the power of Sin, of selfishness within existence. Maybe Satan is less a person, than a force within all of us to turn away from God and make gods of ourselves.

[Billy Cox]

Words are important that way. Our theology is informed as much by the words we use, as the ideas behind the theology.

It seems that words are containers for meaning, and they leak...sometimes badly.