SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Looking for free sermon messages?
Sermon Podcast | Audio | Video

Discussion Forum : General Topics : RANSOM?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re: RANSOM?

I just love these kinds of discussions, it really helps us think about the words that we use everytime we quote scripture and gets us to think about what we actually believe.

But as to this Ransom business, I am with Mike on this one and if I may add my bit.

I was reading this line in Matt18:30

"And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt."

I've read the context of this, but this one line really stands out.

How can anyone who owes money to someone pay thier creditor off while in prison?

Karl

 2005/4/6 19:32
Mekdi
Member



Joined: 2004/4/29
Posts: 92
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

 Re: Ransom

What an enlargement here! God bless you all! This truly is edifying. For point 3 on Mike’s post I need further details–

“3. that man could make no atonement for his own sins. All that he could do, were he holy, would be only to do his duty, and would make no amends for the past. Repentance and future obedience would not blot away one’s sin.”

What is remission of sins in the past? Does the Bible mean the past dispensation? Or is it the redeemed individual’s past? So what are we going to do about sin committed on present? What is God’s term of a sinner anyway? Are we really called a sinner after we accepted the Savior? So how do we define the present and future failures(sins) after we received the Savior? Another question -What is the function of the blood of Jesus to God-ward, man-ward and devil-ward?

Mekdi


_________________
Mekdes Tsige

 2005/4/7 2:24Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re: God was not appeased?

Quote:
The atonement of Christ did not cause or create God's love. It did not make God loving [u]nor did it appease His anger[/u]. The atonement was the expression and result of God's preexisting love.


The underlined section is what is sometimes referred to as the Moral Government Theory of Atonement and was strongly taught by Charles Finney. It has long been rejected by most evangelicals but it has a strong following among the leaders of YWAM and followers of Charles Finney. A leading UK evangelical (Steve Chalke) was recently publicly opposed by the UK Evangelical Alliance for teaching this theory.

freecd is absolutely consistent in his espousing of Finney's Theology which is why these threads have taken the direction they have.

Bible words have histories, rather than definitions. Tracing the word for 'atonement' shows us how God educated His people to understand truth. [b]The Hebrew verb is 'kaphar'.[/b] "Yom Kippur" is the Day of Atonement.

The first instance of the word shows the 'covering' aspect of 'atonement' and is found in Gen 6:14 KJV Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt [u]pitch[/u] it within and without with pitch.
The second instance is in the story of Jacob and Esau as recorded in Gen 32:20 KJV And say ye moreover, Behold, thy servant Jacob is behind us. For he said, I will [u]appease[/u] him with the present that goeth before me, and afterward I will see his face; peradventure he will accept of me. The next instance is in Exo 29:33 KJV And they shall eat those things wherewith the [u]atonement was made[/u], to consecrate and to sanctify them: but a stranger shall not eat thereof, because they are holy. But by this time the primary senses of the word have already been laid down; a covering and an appeasement. If you say the word 'appeasement' slowly you will hear the word 'peace'. It is the sense carried in Eph 2:14-15 NASB For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, (15) by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,[b]The noun which comes from 'kaphar' is 'kappôreth' which means the place at which 'kaphar' was accomplished.[/b] The KJV uses the phrase 'mercy seat' to translate this word. It was the 'gold slab' cover of the Ark of the Covenant. Atoning (propitiating) blood of animals was sprinkled here signifying the 'propitiation' that would be accomplished by the sacrifice of the Lamb of God on the cross. The proper English word would be 'the propitiatory' ie place of propitiation. In Biblical language 'propitiation' is the price paid to remove the offence'

Modernist and liberal scholars have changed the word in the New Testament from propitiation to expiation. This is somewhat technical but 'the offended person is propitiated' while the 'sin is expiated'. They did not like the idea of an 'angry God' so they chose the word 'expiate' rather than 'propitiate' believing that the idea of an angry God who was propitiated by an offering was a pagan notion. See eg 1Jo 2:1-2 RSVA My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; (2) and he is [u]the expiation[/u] for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. The RSV insists that Christ is not a propitiation but is an expiation. the NASB has reverted to the word 'propitiation'; 1Jo 2:1-2 NASB My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; (2) and He Himself is [u]the propitiation[/u] for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

I think perhaps the sweetest Bible reference to God's anger being 'turned away' is in Isa 12:1 NASB Then you will say on that day, "I will give thanks to You, O LORD; For although [u]You were angry with me, Your anger is turned away[/u], And You comfort me. Reading the remainder of this wonderful chapter will show that we are talking about the 'Day of Salvation' and 'Salvation's Wells being opened. I cannot imagine a clearer statement of 'God being appeased'. "you were angry but your anger has been turned away" is a definition of the the word 'appease'.

It is the foundation of justification by faith as Paul shows in Rom 3:23-26 NASB for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (24) being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; (25) whom God displayed publicly as [u]a propitiation[/u] in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; (26) for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Again the RSV changes 'propitiation' to 'expiation'.) Jesus Christ was a public 'propitiation' ie price paid to remove the offence and on this penal substitution rests the whole doctrine of justification by faith.

Finney was wrong here and so is freecd.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/4/7 3:28Profile









 flour has no blood

Why did God allow flour for a sin offering?
Was His anger turned away by flour?
Did flour pay someone off?
Did flour make God more loving?

He allowed poor people to bring fine flour as an acceptable sin offering. Lev. 5:11 "But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering."

IT was God's LOVE behind and the reason for the atonement.

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

 2005/4/7 6:07
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re: flour has no blood

For the law having [b]a shadow[/b] of good things to come, and [b]not[/b] the very image of the things, [b]can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.[/b] For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. [b]But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.[/b]

[b]For it is not possible[/b] that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Wherefore [b]when he cometh into the world[/b], he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast [b]had no pleasure.[/b] Then said I, Lo, [b]I come[/b] (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. [b]He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.[/b] By the which will we are sanctified [b]through the offering[/b] of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

And every priest standeth daily ministering and [b]offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins[/b]:

[b]But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;[/b]

From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. [b]For by one offering[/b] he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, this is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. [b]Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin[/b].

Heb 10:8-18


_________________
Mike Balog

 2005/4/7 8:16Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
Finney was wrong here and so is freecd.



Absolutely Finney was wrong and that error has caused some serious problems in the body of Christ here in the Midwest among folk of the holiness persuasion. Bro. Mike quoted the exact passage I would have quoted.

Finney was a revivalist, but he was no theologian. It is this exact issue of his blatant misunderstanding of the Gospel that has caused me to rethink continuing the Revival Lectures series. The enemy of our souls loves to get ahold of this error of Finney and bring people into dispair of soul even unto the grave. frankly some of the stuff freecd wrote borders on blasphemy in my opinion:

Quote:
The blood of Christ is not magic. It by itself removes no sin. Christ's death saves no one. The atonement is only a method that God used to show His love and make salvation possible.



This is heresy to state that the blood cannot take away sin. The only way this is not heresy is if the meaning is that the blood takes away no sin until faith is exercised in it. Christ died for more than to prove His love- He died to take away our sins. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. I defer to Bro. Mike's post.

Quote:
If on the other hand no one pays the debt and you are released from your obligation, then you are forgiven. Forgiveness is the relaxation of a genuine claim. It is impossible to have any genuine claim both satisfied and forgiven.



This is also false. With men salvation is all impossible, but with God ALL things are possible. Through the work of the cross the sin is atoned and forgiveness granted by grace through faith. This is God's grace at work through the blood in the lives of people who are being perfected in this life through the multiplied means of God's working including chastening. A common theme of the Gospel is that Christ came to give His life as a ransom for many. That is not my words; it is God's word:

[b]for even the Son of Man came not to be ministered to, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.[/b] (Mark 10:45 YLT)

Ransom is the Greek lutron and it means:

1) the price for redeeming,
2) ransom paid for slaves, captives
3) for the ransom of life
4) to liberate many from misery and the penalty of their sins

It comes from Luo which means "to set loose."

The falsehood of the Moral Government theology is why the followers of Finney have no assurance of salvation whatsoever from one millisecond to the next. Saved damned saved damned saved damned saved damnedsaved damned saved damned saved damnedsaved damned saved damned saved damned. This is out and out madness and folly. Moreover, for those who have not read Finney they might need to know that much of his teachings dealt with outward things such as the modernity of a persons clothing and the like. a woman in high heels would certainly be lost in his theology. Any questionable act is sin- and therefor if you do something that is questionable you are lost. He also taught that it was sin to have any kind of excitement or pleasure not totally spiritual. Fishing for sport was sin and so on. A softball game would be sin and so would a game of checkers. This is madness. No wonder we have lost so many of our teenagers in America in holiness circles. This is dead dried up twice dead and plucked up by the roots religion and nothing more. This is a brown twig hanging from a green vine. There is none left but the plucking.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2005/4/7 8:59Profile
Mekdi
Member



Joined: 2004/4/29
Posts: 92
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

 Re:

So to whom was the blood poured? Is it to appease God?

Mekdi


_________________
Mekdes Tsige

 2005/4/7 9:16Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
Why did God allow flour for a sin offering?
Was His anger turned away by flour?
Did flour pay someone off?
Did flour make God more loving?



[b]the which is an image for the present time, according to which both gifts and sacrifices, unable to perfect as to conscience him that worshipped, are offered,[/b] (Hebrews 9:9)

The entire sacrificial system of the Old Testament was a metaphor. It was not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. Therefor it would make no difference whether it were flour or animal blood at the end of the day because only Christ's blood could take away sins. The poor people could only bring what they could bring- but they were under no illusions as to what God required for the sin offering. the message here is that the poor and the rich can be saved. If God had not made the provision for the poor then only the aristrocrats could have been saved. Yet, the blood of Christ is for us requires no offering on our part. God has made the acceptable offering- He has provided for Himself a Lamb and we receive what He provided by grace through faith. Nothing in my hand I bring- simply to thy cross I cling.

God was not implying that flour can take away sins. Cain was made a vegabond in the earth and that process began with his misunderstanding of what a sin offering should be. Vegetables won't do it. Not for Cain and not for those who brought the fine flour- and not for those who brought the blood of bulls and of goats. Salvation was for those who through faith looked to the blood that would take away sins- to the promised Seed that would come and give His life as a ransom for many. Did they understand these things? maybe not, but they walked faithfully in the revelation they had and God counted it to them for righteousness.



_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2005/4/7 9:19Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re: Types and shadows and...

Yes! My, this is just tremendous... and why?
Goodness, where to start.

Thank you Robert! For the long tenure and for all that you have brought forth here over these many months, what just grips and proves and states so well...

We [b]can[/b] change our mind! Thank God for a Berean mindset... So much is just that of [i]gleaning[/i] for this misfit. Times of deep, serious study into things, that make one think and brood, the challenges to predispositions, 'schools of thought' as it were.

Much good that was gleaned from someone like Finney, especially in those lectures of months past and yet also some things that left me puzzled. Like going back and re-listing all your past sin's, recall at the time being caught in between, 'am I chaffing at this because I don't [i]want[/i] to do this? Or is it really necessary? Is it even really biblical?' Furthermore, some of the very same things you brought up regarding these legalistic 'requirements' as it were, outward things, games and dress, 'associations' of conduct and so forth... Pharisaical? So it seems.

But what really stands out loudly is just that [i]willingness[/i] to scrap it all, if need be;

Quote:
Finney was a revivalist, but he was no theologian. It is this exact issue of his blatant misunderstanding of the Gospel that has caused me to rethink continuing the Revival Lectures series. The enemy of our souls loves to get ahold of this error of Finney and bring people into despair of soul even unto the grave.



To "rethink". Thank God, so much that is heart warming in that. To be just honest enough to work through all these things and not feel constrained to 'hold' to this or that school of thought no matter what upbringing or traditions we may have come through or are presently 'aligned with'. That it is all [b]subject[/b] to change. Keep stealing snippets from and a bit ahead of where it is currently at, referring to the other OC thread, but again...;

"Worship is giving the best we have unreservedly to God. Jesus Christ was entirely merciful because He kept nothing at all. We are merciful in spots, in a fragmentary way, because we will stick to our opinionettes. Whatever makes us spiritually satisfied will twist our mercy at once, because an opinionette is attached to every spot where we are satisfied, and when anyone comes in contact with that spot of satisfaction we are merciless to them. Jesus Christ was never merciless, and it is only as we draw on His life that we are like our Father in heaven. The only safety is to live the life hid with Christ in God. As long as we are consciously there, we are not there. It is only when we are there that it never occurs to us that we are, but the evidence is strong because others are getting the blessings of God through us and are helping themselves to us, even as Jesus Christ was made broken bread and poured-out wine for us. God cannot make some of us into broken bread because there are bits of unbaked dough in us that would produce indigestion. We have to go into the furnace again to be baked properly until we are no more like Ephraim, “a cake not turned.”

Oswald Chambers

So just felt compelled to lift up this aspect for praise. There are other times where the tendencies seem to be, "Oh just to keep it simple", the only problem with that despite the truth of it is often times to get there is a difficult and laborious task, thinking is hard work.... but the benefits!


_________________
Mike Balog

 2005/4/7 10:11Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
God cannot make some of us into broken bread because there are bits of unbaked dough in us that would produce indigestion. We have to go into the furnace again to be baked properly until we are no more like Ephraim, ?“?a cake not turned.?”?



What an awesome quote that speaks to me today. Was it Polycarp that said that his body would be ground up like wheat by the lions that he might be made pure bread?

I hope not to come off too strong on these things, yet I am very concerned that we don't head down the road that Finney went down when it comes to soteriology. I think what happens is that when God sends revival there is a tendency to keep tightening the 'holiness' bolts (as it were) until the metaphorical heads snap off. We have all done that at one time when working on the bicycle, lawn mower or car. i wonder if this is tight enough and then wham! The whole thing breaks off in our hand. that's what happens when the revivalist hangs around too long at one congregation. I think I see a progression here:

1) They repent of MAJOR sins such as idolatry, fornication, adultery, theft, etc. and simply "turn back to God."

2) They then get a blast of preaching on sins of the heart such as covetousness and the like and they repent of that.

3) They then get a blast of preaching on loving God with all their heart, denying self, etc. and they repent of that.

4) They then get a blast of teaching on putting God first in all things and utterly abandoning all amusements that are not 'spiritual exercises' and they repent of that.

5) They then get a blast of teaching on eating for pleasure and salting the food. No salt and pepper shakers in the house because that would be indulging in the flesh. Smoking at this point is a serious sin- not because of health reasons, but because it costs money and we are to be good stewards.

6) They then get a blast of teaching on wearing certain cloths and going to certain 'worldly shops.' Clothes must look plain or they are worldly. High heels on women make the sounds of "sounding brass and tinkling symbols" on the floors.

7) If you do not keep all these things and more... you are not saved and need to repent. If you commit one of these sins you are on equal ground with a sinner.


Sound silly? I have seen it all and often.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2005/4/7 10:38Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy