Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I goggled this and other such phrases. I got hundreds of website in which this phrase word-for-word was stated almost like it was one of the scriptures.
Except it isn't. It's a construction; a dogma that has been built up over centuries from the Dark Ages starting with Augustine, through Anselm, and then onto Calvin and Luther. It's been repeated so many billions of times it has become like Holy Writ, which is why I can pull up hundreds of quotes from various people and places even though this phrase doesn't appear in the Bible in any form near to this, best as I can tell.
For support of this theory, "The wages of sin is death" is always given as justification for this belief. But how did we get from "The wages of sin is death" to this:
"God is a loving God but He is also a just and holy God and when man sinned it aroused His wrath which then had to be laid on someone. His holiness demands a penalty be paid for sin. Since man couldn't pay the penalty because of his sinful nature God called upon Christ so that His wrath could be laid fully on His Son in our place, thus taking away the penalty and making the payment owed to Him for our sins."
I know there are verses about God's love. Elsewhere there are some about how God abhors sin. But where specifically does it say this in the Bible:
Quote:
His holiness demands a penalty be paid for sin.
Someone please show me the Book chapter and verse from which this comes.
And the question was answered. They believe that the payment was made by God to God.
What they continuously avoid addressing is that, since a ransom is always paid to whomever is holding someone captive, the logical conclusion of their beliefs is that God was holding mankind captive. If they deny that God was holding mankind captive, then it makes no sense to believe that God was the one demanding a ransom.
They respond to this with evasion because, as Mystic says:
Ransom? Captives?
Everything is God's. What are you talking about captives? So yeah - His character sets the standard of holiness. Penalty is separation. There is the death of His Son which God uses to bring people back to Himself.
This is not an earthly ransom situation with a kidnapping...
Yes. "Ransom". The word is used in the gospel of both Matthew and Mark.
A ransom is paid to someone who is holding someone else captive and demanding payment for their release.
Quote:
Everything is God's. What are you talking about captives? So yeah - His character sets the standard of holiness. Penalty is separation. There is the death of His Son which God uses to bring people back to Himself.
This is not an earthly ransom situation with a kidnapping...
You can try to redefine it all you want. But, as Mike said, he believes God demanded payment/ransom, and God (Jesus) paid it to God (the Father). If you disagree with that, take it up with him.
You believe that ransom payment was demanded by God, and paid by God to God.
What you continuously avoid addressing is that, since a ransom is always paid to whomever is holding someone captive, the logical conclusion of your beliefs is that God was holding mankind captive. If you deny that God was holding mankind captive, then it makes no sense to believe that God was the one demanding a ransom.
You can (and will) continue to avoid addressing this, but it is what it is.
I have directly addressed and answered your argument. It can only be made so clear.
Fallen man is held captive to sin. Not to God. The righteousness of God had to be satisfied by the penalty of sin which God imposed it on being paid before man could be freed from sin. I showed you Scripture which refers to man being freed from captivity to sin. God demanded the payment for sin so that man could be freed from sin, and Christ paid that penalty. This propitiated the Father. The payment was made to God so that man could be freed from sin.
I not only gave my commentary on the matter, but I provided three other commentary sources which explain the issue and you simply ignored them. Instead, you simply falsely accused me of evading the issue.
I do not think that you are honestly interested in trying to understanding the issue. Your comments indicate otherwise. And I am not interested in wasting my time.
What a fence straddler you are. You can't decide which side of the fence to come down on.
Either the bread and the wine represented the body and blood of Christ, or they were literally the body and blood of Christ. It has to be one or the other. It cannot be both.
To say, ''all that Jesus said was "IS", and ''we believe it as Jesus specifically said ....."IS". nothing more, nothing less.'', is wimpy. Jesus obviously meant that the bread and the wine represented or symbolized His body and His blood. Why anyone would make an issue out of this as you are doing is beyond me.
The issue is only in the fact that you're distorting what Jesus said .... he did not say
it was nothing less than "IS" by the Reformed distortion of "symbolize"
nor than anything more than "IS" by the Catholicism's literal (substantiation).
Fence sitter .... ha. The Wittenberg Concord of 1536 found this serious enough to addressed and sign the theological position which refuted the Catholicism's literal.
The near 150 yr. old theological paper called :
The Sacramental Presence in the Theology of the Synodical Conference
which in great detail refutes many of then false teachings like the Reformed "symbolic" distortion states:
"theological and hermeneutically ..( is based on) faithfulness to the " verba dei" (words of God) to that word."
The originator of the paper presented at the Synodical conference in 1872 held that:
"The church's confession was not there to mold God's Word but to be molded by it"
In short ... the Reformed is molding God's Word to fit it's "symbolized" just as Catholicism molds God's Word to fit it's substantiation (literal).
Last edited by twin.spin; 08-27-2013 at 10:49 PM..
Yes. "Ransom". The word is used in the gospel of both Matthew and Mark.
A ransom is paid to someone who is holding someone else captive and demanding payment for their release.
You can try to redefine it all you want. But, as Mike said, he believes God demanded payment/ransom, and God (Jesus) paid it to God (the Father). If you disagree with that, take it up with him.
No one is holding anyone captive.
Is everything and everyone God's property or not?
And let's get things straight.
God did not demand a ransom - as though He has kidnapped someone who wants a release.
Out of His love - He paid the price of violating His holiness by giving up His Son for death.
The issue is only in the fact that you're distorting what Jesus said .... he did not say
it was nothing less than "IS" by the Reformed distortion of "symbolize"
nor than anything more than "IS" by the Catholicism's literal (substantiation).
Fence sitter .... ha. The Wittenberg Concord of 1536 found this serious enough to addressed and sign the theological position which refuted the Catholicism's literal.
The near 150 yr. old theological paper called :
The Sacramental Presence in the Theology of the Synodical Conference
which in great detail refutes many of then false teachings like the Reformed "symbolic" distortion states:
"theological and hermeneutically ..( is based on) faithfulness to the " verba dei" (words of God) to that word."
The originator of the paper presented at the Synodical conference in 1872 held that:
"The church's confession was not there to mold God's Word but to be molded by it"
In short ... the Reformed is molding God's Word to fit it's "symbolized" just as Catholicism molds God's Word to fit it's substantiation (literal).
Don't be a fence straddler. What did Jesus MEAN? Did He mean to imply that the bread and wine were literally His blood, or did He mean that the bread and wine represented His body and blood? He couldn't have meant both. So choose!!! I will help you. He meant that the bread and wine symbolized His body and blood. His blood which was given for the forgiveness of sins. See how easy that is!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
