Tasted Death for every Man !

[Butch5]

Hey Butch:
Trying to play devil's advocate here .... this is not life and death *giggle*

Hmmm .... I think both agree that Christians are forgiven
.... so can it be said that Christ paid a ransom/debt. Definitely had to die to satisfy God's holiness/justice.
Debt - something, typically money, that is owed or due.

Hmmm... there is the song ...
He paid the debt he did not own, I own the debt I could not pay
I needed someone to wash my sins away ... yahda, yahda
I don't think that qualifies as evidence ...cute aside though

There is the RANSOM TO SATAN THEORY ... I don't give that much credence

Hmmm, I can't come up with anything better... I guess I side with you. Fun mental exercise.

Hi Fredy,
My whole point is that Christ didn't die to satisfy God's justice or holiness. That's where the forgiveness comes in. My argument is that Christ died to ransom mankind. That's the difference between the Penal and Ransom models.

The Ransone theory is the original teaching of the church. This satisfaction idea doesn't appear in the church until Anselm around 1100 AD. Here's a quote from Irenaeus, He was a student of Polycarp who was a student of the Apostle John. So, he's only one generation removed from the apostle.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 1

1. For in no other way could we have learned the things of God, unless our Master, existing as the Word, had become man. For no other being had the power of revealing to us the things of the Father, except His own proper Word. For what other person “knew the mind of the Lord,” or who else “has become His counsellor?” Again, we could have learned in no other way than by seeing our Teacher, and hearing His voice with our own ears, that, having become imitators of His works as well as doers of His words, we may have communion with Him, receiving increase from the perfect One, and from Him who is prior to all creation. We — who were but lately created by the only best and good Being, by Him also who has the gift of immortality, having been formed after His likeness (predestinated, according to the prescience of the Father, that we, who had as yet no existence, might come into being), and made the first-fruits of creation — have received, in the times known beforehand, [the blessings of salvation] according to the ministration of the Word, who is perfect in all things, as the mighty Word, and very man, who, redeeming us by His own blood in a manner consonant to reason, gave Himself as a redemption for those who had been led into captivity. And since the apostasy tyrannized over us unjustly, and, though we were by nature the property of the omnipotent God, alienated us contrary to nature, rendering us its own disciples, the Word of God, powerful in all things, and not defective with regard to His own justice, did righteously turn against that apostasy, and redeem from it His own property, not by violent means, as the [apostasy] had obtained dominion over us at the beginning, when it insatiably snatched away what was not its own, but by means of persuasion, as became a God of counsel, who does not use violent means to obtain what He desires; so that neither should justice be infringed upon, nor the ancient handiwork of God go to destruction. Since the Lord thus has redeemed us through His own blood, giving His soul for our souls, and His flesh for our flesh, and has also poured out the Spirit of the Father for the union and communion of God and man, imparting indeed God to men by means of the Spirit, and, on the other hand, attaching man to God by His own incarnation, and bestowing upon us at His coming immortality durably and truly, by means of communion with God, — all the doctrines of the heretics fall to ruin.
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

 

[Butch5]

Probably best to let a dictionary define words.

• used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing.
• every member or individual component of
• quantifier; used with either mass or count nouns to indicate the whole number or amount of or every one of a class

Thus, the use of ALL can be ambiguous and often construed by one's bias as the following example points out:
Jill says, "All motorcycles have two wheels. " Greg responds, "That's ridiculous. A single motorcycle has two wheels. And there are of 200,000,000 motorcycles in the world. Therefore, all motorcycles would have over 400,000,000 wheels.

Hi Fredy,

We discussed this. They are using all in different contexts. However, all means the same in each. If we speak of individual motorcycles, they all have 2 wheels. How many motorcycles are excluded? None. If we speak of all motorcycles collectively there are 400,000,000 wheels. How many motorcycles were excluded? None. In both cases all is referring to the totality.

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi Fredy,
My whole point is that Christ didn't die to satisfy God's justice or holiness. That's where the forgiveness comes in. My argument is that Christ died to ransom mankind. That's the difference between the Penal and Ransom models.

The Ransone theory is the original teaching of the church. This satisfaction idea doesn't appear in the church until Anselm around 1100 AD. Here's a quote from Irenaeus, He was a student of Polycarp who was a student of the Apostle John. So, he's only one generation removed from the apostle.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 1

1. For in no other way could we have learned the things of God, unless our Master, existing as the Word, had become man. For no other being had the power of revealing to us the things of the Father, except His own proper Word. For what other person “knew the mind of the Lord,” or who else “has become His counsellor?” Again, we could have learned in no other way than by seeing our Teacher, and hearing His voice with our own ears, that, having become imitators of His works as well as doers of His words, we may have communion with Him, receiving increase from the perfect One, and from Him who is prior to all creation. We — who were but lately created by the only best and good Being, by Him also who has the gift of immortality, having been formed after His likeness (predestinated, according to the prescience of the Father, that we, who had as yet no existence, might come into being), and made the first-fruits of creation — have received, in the times known beforehand, [the blessings of salvation] according to the ministration of the Word, who is perfect in all things, as the mighty Word, and very man, who, redeeming us by His own blood in a manner consonant to reason, gave Himself as a redemption for those who had been led into captivity. And since the apostasy tyrannized over us unjustly, and, though we were by nature the property of the omnipotent God, alienated us contrary to nature, rendering us its own disciples, the Word of God, powerful in all things, and not defective with regard to His own justice, did righteously turn against that apostasy, and redeem from it His own property, not by violent means, as the [apostasy] had obtained dominion over us at the beginning, when it insatiably snatched away what was not its own, but by means of persuasion, as became a God of counsel, who does not use violent means to obtain what He desires; so that neither should justice be infringed upon, nor the ancient handiwork of God go to destruction. Since the Lord thus has redeemed us through His own blood, giving His soul for our souls, and His flesh for our flesh, and has also poured out the Spirit of the Father for the union and communion of God and man, imparting indeed God to men by means of the Spirit, and, on the other hand, attaching man to God by His own incarnation, and bestowing upon us at His coming immortality durably and truly, by means of communion with God, — all the doctrines of the heretics fall to ruin.
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

I also agree with the above, although, I must say, I see some concept or other from the bible in every atonement theory.

Let me just say for those reading along that may not be familiar:
The Penal Substitution Theory....begun by the reformed movement,,,
states that Christ's death is to satisfy God's WRATH.

The Satisfaction Theory is to satisfy God's JUSTICE.
This was adopted by Anselm in about 1,000AD

 

[Fastfredy0]

Hey Butch:
Aside: I know there is 9ish theories of atonement. I haven't studied it in depth. I am reading about it now to get a better grasp on it. I do recall some guy saying the word "atonement" is not found in the N.T. (for what that worth).

Gotquestions.org has a write up

What are the various theories on the atonement? | GotQuestions.org

What are the various theories on the atonement? Was the atonement a ransom to Satan? Was the atonement a penal substitution?

www.gotquestions.org

https://www.gotquestions.org/penal-substitution.html Penal Substituation Theory

My whole point is that Christ didn't die to satisfy God's justice or holiness.

I look at it as:
God is holy/just. Christians sin, yet are forgiven. Something must satisfy God attribute of justice and holiness and I see it as Christ's death.

That's where the forgiveness comes in. My argument is that Christ died to ransom mankind. That's the difference between the Penal and Ransom models.

Well, looks like you have looked into this more than I. I think I understand your point of view.

I favor the Penal Substitution Theory. I wouldn't take a bullet for it. Maybe I favor it because the people I've read favor it. My rule of thumb for questions like this is to consider the attributes of God and His purpose and see where that leads me.

The Ransone theory is the original teaching of the church.

Gotquestions.org says "This theory has little, if any, scriptural support and has had few supporters throughout church history."


Anyways ... that's my viewpoint ... if I wanted to substantiate my opinion I would list verses about God being just and propitiation verses.

 

[Fastfredy0]

We discussed this. They are using all in different contexts. However, all means the same in each. If we speak of individual motorcycles, they all have 2 wheels. How many motorcycles are excluded? None. If we speak of all motorcycles collectively there are 400,000,000 wheels. How many motorcycles were excluded? None. In both cases all is referring to the totality.

Hey Butch:
I think I see your point better. You are saying all (without exception) the motorcycle wheels in either understanding is included. Hmmm ... didn't think of it that way. Perhaps another example if I can think of one that makes my point ...

John 14:26 But the Helper (Comforter, Advocate, Intercessor—Counselor, Strengthener, Standby), the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name [in My place, to represent Me and act on My behalf], He will teach you all things. And He will help you remember everything that I have told you. The Spirit has infinite knowledge so the transference of “ALL” without exception is not possible.

Acts 26:4 Paul says, The Jews all know the way I have lived ever since I was a child, from the beginning of my life in my own country, and also in Jerusalem. Does he mean that every Jew without exception knew him? How about those who lived in the past and those who would live in the future?

Matthew 10:22 All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. The statement does not intend to say that all human beings without exception would hate Christians, since at least the Christians themselves would love one another.

 

[Butch5]

Hey Butch:
Aside: I know there is 9ish theories of atonement. I haven't studied it in depth. I am reading about it now to get a better grasp on it. I do recall some guy saying the word "atonement" is not found in the N.T. (for what that worth).

Gotquestions.org has a write up

What are the various theories on the atonement? | GotQuestions.org

What are the various theories on the atonement? Was the atonement a ransom to Satan? Was the atonement a penal substitution?

www.gotquestions.org

https://www.gotquestions.org/penal-substitution.html Penal Substituation Theory

Hi Fredy,
Yeah, it's been a while since I looked at it. The word atonement isn't there but in Greek its different.

I avoid got questions at all costs. I've just found too much bad theology on that site.

I look at it as:
God is holy/just. Christians sin, yet are forgiven. Something must satisfy God attribute of justice and holiness and I see it as Christ's death.

I agree God is holy and just. That's why we need forgiveness.

Well, looks like you have looked into this more than I. I think I understand your point of view.

I favor the Penal Substitution Theory. I wouldn't take a bullet for it. Maybe I favor it because the people I've read favor it. My rule of thumb for questions like this is to consider the attributes of God and His purpose and see where that leads me.

That could be. Also if you've not really considered it you'd likely go with what you know. I find too many problems with Penal Substition. Not just the logical contradiction, but even with God's character. The model impugns God's Character

Gotquestions.org says "This theory has little, if any, scriptural support and has had few supporters throughout church history."

That's why I avoid it. it's just full of errors. The Ransom theory was the position of the Christian church from the beginning till Anselm. The doctrine has plenty of support in Scripture and it doesn't have the problems that Penal Atonement does.

Anyways ... that's my viewpoint ... if I wanted to substantiate my opinion I would list verses about God being just and propitiation verses.

No doubt that God is just. That Scriptures make that clear. I'm familiar with those passage and the fit nicely with the Ransom model.

 

[Fastfredy0]

I avoid got questions at all costs. I've just found too much bad theology on that site.

LOL... well, they agree with me (and vise versa) a lot .. so my bias it to "like them".
You seem like an intelligent and articulate guy. It would be much more convenient for me if you were on my side.

I agree God is holy and just. That's why we need forgiveness.

I don't see how God can be just/morally righteous and ignore sin unless something, figuratively speaking, is put on the scales of justice to balance RIGHT and WRONG.

Justice: the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause. ... the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings: a court of justice.

Justice, means obeying the law or being penalized.

How is God propitiated by just ignoring sin?

If God can overlook sin (just forgive) then why not be more forgiving (God is always the MOST of every good attribute) and forgive EVERYTHING and send every person without exception to heaven as well as the fallen angels.

Anyways, that's my thoughts. Almost supper time

 

[Butch5]

Hey Butch:
I think I see your point better. You are saying all (without exception) the motorcycle wheels in either understanding is included. Hmmm ... didn't think of it that way. Perhaps another example if I can think of one that makes my point ...

John 14:26 But the Helper (Comforter, Advocate, Intercessor—Counselor, Strengthener, Standby), the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name [in My place, to represent Me and act on My behalf], He will teach you all things. And He will help you remember everything that I have told you. The Spirit has infinite knowledge so the transference of “ALL” without exception is not possible.

Hi Fredy,

I think in this context Jesus isn't implying that they would receive all knowledge. Rather, all of the things they had to learn. So, I think this is based on context, but all still means all in that everything they needed to be taught would be taught to them

Acts 26:4 Paul says, The Jews all know the way I have lived ever since I was a child, from the beginning of my life in my own country, and also in Jerusalem. Does he mean that every Jew without exception knew him? How about those who lived in the past and those who would live in the future?

Matthew 10:22 All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. The statement does not intend to say that all human beings without exception would hate Christians, since at least the Christians themselves would love one another.

Here I think it's just hyperbole. However, for the hyperbole to work, all must mean all.

 

[Butch5]

LOL... well, they agree with me (and vise versa) a lot .. so my bias it to "like them".
You seem like an intelligent and articulate guy. It would be much more convenient for me if you were on my side.

Thanks! That's funny! There was a time when I would have agreed with you

I don't see how God can be just/morally righteous and ignore sin unless something, figuratively speaking, is put on the scales of justice to balance RIGHT and WRONG.

I think that's the whole point of forgiveness. We don't get what we deserve.

Justice: the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause. ... the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings: a court of justice.

Justice, means obeying the law or being penalized.

How is God propitiated by just ignoring sin?

I don't think propitiation is a good translation of the Greek hilasterion. Hilasterion is translated "mercy seat" all through the Bible with the exception of three passages. I think that was convenience. If we translated those three passages as mercy seat they make perfect sense.

To answer your question, he's not. That's the purpose of forgiveness. When we forgive a debt we release the other person of their obligation.

If God can overlook sin (just forgive) then why not be more forgiving (God is always the MOST of every good attribute) and forgive EVERYTHING and send every person without exception to heaven as well as the fallen angels.

Anyways, that's my thoughts. Almost supper time

I guess He could if He wants to. I just don't see that He's chosen that route.

 

[Butch5]

Fastfredy0

Hi Fredy,

If you're interested here's a link to a guy named David Bercot who teaches on the early Christians and what they believed. In this link he compares the Ransom theory and the Penal against what the early Christians beleived.

Here's part two on Imputed Righteousness

 

[Edward]

It can't be paid and forgiven, they're mutually exclusive. It can only be one or the other.

No, a person is the body. God said man is flesh. Adam was flesh. He wasn't something in flesh, he was flesh

1 Thessalonians 2:11
11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.../

2 Corinthians 4:16-18
16 Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day. 17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, 18 while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.../

I believe these scriptures paint a different story than yours.
I actually have more scriptures on this if you want...

 

[Butch5]

1 Thessalonians 2:11
11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.../

2 Corinthians 4:16-18
16 Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day. 17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, 18 while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.../

I believe these scriptures paint a different story than yours.
I actually have more scriptures on this if you want...

There is a spirit in man. It's the breath of life

 

[Edward]

Hebrews 4:12, 1 Thessalonians 5:23, Romans 8:16

 

[Butch5]

Hebrews 4:12, 1 Thessalonians 5:23, Romans 8:16

I'm aware of them. None say that man is a spirit

 

[Edward]

There is a spirit in man. It's the breath of life

No, man has his own spirit also. When we're born again, God gives us a new spirit the Bible says. God doesn't give us more breath. We get a new spirit. Our flesh body is a temporary dwelling place. Like a tent sort of. Our spirit is unseen and spiritual in nature so is eternal. We are to look to the unseen. Scripture says all over that we are not to look on the outside but at the inner man. How could this be if man were only a body?

God is triune. Father, Son, Holy Ghost. We were created in God's image, thus, spirit/soul/body.

 

[Edward]

I'm aware of them. None say that man is a spirit

Well, what does this verse mean then?
1 Thessalonians 2:11
11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.

 

[Butch5]

No, man has his own spirit also. When we're born again, God gives us a new spirit the Bible says. God doesn't give us more breath. We get a new spirit. Our flesh body is a temporary dwelling place. Like a tent sort of. Our spirit is unseen and spiritual in nature so is eternal. We are to look to the unseen. Scripture says all over that we are not to look on the outside but at the inner man. How could this be if man were only a body?

God is triune. Father, Son, Holy Ghost. We were created in God's image, thus, spirit/soul/body.

Sorry, you won't find that in Scripture. The word that translators translate spirit, means breath. The breath in man is the breath of life

 

[Butch5]

Well, what does this verse mean then?
1 Thessalonians 2:11
11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.

It means the breath of man which is in him. That's the breath of life.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Here I think it's just hyperbole. However, for the hyperbole to work, all must mean all.

Hey Butch:
Seems like a bit of a stretch. Granted, I do use the anthropomorphic explanation for verses saying "God changed his mind" but then I have verses saying God never changes His mind to support my contention. I suppose the following are hyperbole too:

Matthew 3:5 At that time Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea and all the district around the Jordan; all the babies, cripples, blind, old ... hard to believe
John 1:7 He [John the Baptist] came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all [some versions use “everyone” instead of “all”] might believe through him. (100% success rate as you say ALL means is incredible ... much better ratio than Christ achieved)

Romans 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. “All” without exception would validate universalism.

“And early in the morning He came again into the Temple, and all the people came unto Him; and He sat down, and taught them” (John 8:2); are we to understand this expression absolutely or relatively? Does “all the people” mean all without exception or all without distinction, that is, all classes and conditions of people? Surely the latter; for the Temple was not able to accommodate everybody that was in Jerusalem at this time.

That's ALL (pun intended) the verses I got where ALL means everyone without distinction IMO; whereas, you would say 'everyone without exception'.

 

[Hopeful]

Hopeful, are you reading my replies. A debt can't be paid so it can be forgiven. That's like saying he went left to go right or he went up to go down. It's one or the other, not both. A debt is either paid or it is forgiven. It's not paid so it can be forgiven. That's a logical contradiction.

You are caught in some semantics puzzle.
Someone else paid my debt, causing the forgiveness of my debt.

That's the whole aspect of it. God said "you are dust" to Adam. He didnt say you are in dust. Moses records God saying man is flesh.

Again, semantics.