Understanding the Gospel Through the Book of Life

[pnattmbtc]

Nothing in the verses is about what man does, and you know it, don't you?

Yes, the verses involve something God does for man, and you know it, I suppose.

And since the verses involve something God does for man, then by your own logic, God does need the cross or Christ to forgive us.  And you have just proven your own contention wrong that God does not need the cross to forgive us.

Then we're back to the question I asked you before.  Why would God need the cross, or Christ, to forgive us?

[Samie]

Same question; why?  If God doesn't need the cross or Christ to forgive, and man does, how does Christ's death help man be forgiven?

Forgiveness entails shedding of blood and the wages of sin is death. By his own death, man could pay and be forgiven of his sin, but that would be the eternal end for him. He would have paid and been forgiven of the sin God hates, but God would have eternally lost the sinner He loves. So God made a way whereby sins are paid for and forgiven, with the sinner given another chance at eternity.  On the cross, humanity - Jews & Gentiles alike - was attached to the body of the Son, creating a new Man: Christ the Head, humanity the Body. When the Head died, the Body was with Him, and all sins were paid for and forgiven. When Christ resurrected, the Body was resurrected TOGETHER with Him, spiritually alive and born again into a new hope of life eternal.

Attached to the Body of Him Who is his Strength for overcoming evil with good, man has His Power to overcome. And overcomers will not be blotted out from the Book of Life, nor detached from His Body, nor dismembered from the family of God.

Scriptural references will be provided upon request.

[pnattmbtc]

Forgiveness entails shedding of blood and the wages of sin is death. By his own death, man could pay and be forgiven of his sin, but that would be the eternal end for him. He would have paid and been forgiven of the sin God hates, but God would have eternally lost the sinner He loves. So God made a way whereby sins are paid for and forgiven, with the sinner given another chance at eternity.  On the cross, humanity - Jews & Gentiles alike - was attached to the body of the Son, creating a new Man: Christ the Head, humanity the Body. When the Head died, the Body was with Him, and all sins were paid for and forgiven. When Christ resurrected, the Body was resurrected TOGETHER with Him, spiritually alive and born again into a new hope of life eternal.

Attached to the Body of Him Who is his Strength for overcoming evil with good, man has His Power to overcome. And overcomers will not be blotted out from the Book of Life, nor detached from His Body, nor dismembered from the family of God.

Scriptural references will be provided upon request.

I'm interested in the payment aspect.  I'd be particularly interested from what Christ preached, if possible.  That is, did Christ teach anywhere that the purpose of His death was to pay for sin so that God could forgive us (assuming I've understood you correctly).  If you are unable to provide any Scriptures from Christ's words, that He came to pay for sin in order to enable God to forgive us, then presenting other Scriptures would be OK.  In particular, the part I'm interested in is that God cannot forgive man unless sin is paid for (assuming again, I'm hearing you correctly, and this is what you are saying).

My take on things is the other way around; God forgives man freely, just like Christ freely forgave sinners in the Gospels, but it is *man* who needs Christ and the cross in order to be reconciled to God.  From the God side, God was already reconciled, and so He gave His Son, but from the man side, we were "enemies in our own mind" and need to be reconciled to God.

[Samie]

I'm interested in the payment aspect.  I'd be particularly interested from what Christ preached, if possible.  That is, did Christ teach anywhere that the purpose of His death was to pay for sin so that God could forgive us (assuming I've understood you correctly).  If you are unable to provide any Scriptures from Christ's words, that He came to pay for sin in order to enable God to forgive us, then presenting other Scriptures would be OK.  In particular, the part I'm interested in is that God cannot forgive man unless sin is paid for (assuming again, I'm hearing you correctly, and this is what you are saying).

Here’s my position:

Because the “wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23) and forgiveness necessitates the shedding of blood (Heb 9:22),  when a sinner dies he has paid for his sin. And since shedding of blood = death, forgiveness is granted when a sinner dies.  Therefore when the Lamb Who takes away the sin of the world died, payment for and forgiveness from sin were simultaneously attained.  Let me elucidate.

For me, "wages of sin" entails payment for sin. The sinner is the servant or slave of sin:

 ^NAS John 8:34-36   ³⁴ Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.  ³⁵ "And ^athe slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever.  ³⁶ "If therefore the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.

 Freeing a slave from his master necessitates paying a ransom. And Jesus is ransom for all:

 ^NKJ 1 Timothy 2:6 [Christ] gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,

 Ransom is from the Greek lu,tron . From Strong’s 3083 lu,tron lutron {loo'-tron}  Meaning:  1) the price for redeeming, ransom 1a) paid for slaves, captives 1b) for the ransom of life 2) to liberate many from misery and the penalty of their sins.

 Jesus Himself said, His life is the Ransom:

 ^KJV Matthew 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many

 Ransom is directly related with Redemption.  Redemption is the Greek avpolu,trwsij . From Strong’s  629 avpolu,trwsij apolutrosis {ap-ol-oo'-tro-sis} Meaning:  1) a releasing effected by payment of ransom 1a) redemption, deliverance 1b) liberation procured by the payment

 Our Redemption is through the Blood of Christ.  And Scriptures equate Redemption with Forgiveness:

 ^KJV Ephesians 1:7 In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace

 The Father Himself said no man can ransom another, because the cost of his redemption is precious:

 ^KJV Psalm 49:6-8   ⁶ They that trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches;  ⁷ None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:  ⁸ For the redemption of their soul is precious . . .

 And through Hoseah He declared that He Himself will redeem His people:

 ^KJV Hosea 13:14   I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death

 And the Father redeemed us through the precious Blood of His Son:

1 Peter 1:18-20   ¹⁸ Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;  ¹⁹ But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:  ²⁰ Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

 Based on the above Scriptures, I believe that when our Savior died, the ransom was paid, redemption or forgiveness was attained.

[Samie]

My take on things is the other way around; God forgives man freely, just like Christ freely forgave sinners in the Gospels, but it is *man* who needs Christ and the cross in order to be reconciled to God.  From the God side, God was already reconciled, and so He gave His Son, but from the man side, we were "enemies in our own mind" and need to be reconciled to God.

The Apostle Paul responds:

Romans 5:10, 11   ¹⁰ For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son,  much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.  ¹¹ And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

In the NT, Reconciliation and Atonement are from the same Greek katallagh, .  It is quite clear to me that we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son. Can man undo what God has done? I don't think so.

^NAS 2 Corinthians 5:18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation

God through Christ has ALREADY reconciled us to Himself.  What more can we do? Can we do any better than what God has done FOR us, to reconcile ourselves to Him? I doubt.

[pnattmbtc]

Thanks for writing your response in detail.  The software is being flaky again.  I'm doing the best I can with the formatting here; please let me know if there's something unclear.

Here’s my position:
Because the “wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23) and forgiveness necessitates the shedding of blood (Heb 9:22),  when a sinner dies he has paid for his sin. 

 

What do you mean "paid for his sin"?  This makes sense if one means, "suffered the consequences of the choice," so, for example, I can say, "If you are not careful, you will be for it," meaning if you are not careful, there may be unwanted consequences, but this payment is not literal.

If you are using "paid for his sin" in a literal sense, like a financial transaction, then I disagree, as who would the cretidor be?  Sin is simply wrong-doing.  If you do something wrong towards me, you have wronged me, and have sinned against me.  I can choose to forgive you or not, but payment doesn't enter into this, unless the nature of the transgression is financial.  Even if it is financial, I can choose to forgive that debt to.  If I forgive the debt, there is no payment involved.

God has chosen to forgive everyone.  God freely forgives, as Christ demonstrated ("When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father").  God does not need payment in order to forgive us.

And since shedding of blood = death, forgiveness is granted when a sinner dies.  

This doesn't follow.  Hebrews says there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood, but it doesn't explain why.  This is the whole question.  You are assuming, apparently, that it has something to do with God's being able to forgive us, but the text does not say that.  *We* are the ones that need blood; not God.  We need the blood in order to be reconciled to God, as 1 Peter 3:18 states, to "bring us to God."  God doesn't need to be brought to us, because God so loved the world that He gave His Son.

Therefore when the Lamb Who takes away the sin of the world died, payment for and forgiveness from sin were simultaneously attained.  

But this is assuming that forgivenss requires payment.  Why should God require payment to forgive?

Let me elucidate.
For me, "wages of sin" entails payment for sin. 

I see no reason for this assumption.  One translations renders the text, "Sin pays its wages: death", the meaning being that death is the consequence of sin.  So God warned man not to sin, because sinning results in death, like cigaret smoking leads to lung cancer.  That sin should lead to death is logical, because sin is based on the principle of putting self first, but life in only in Christ, so we can only receive life by looking to Christ, not self.  Or, to put it another way, the principle of "me first" is not a principle which can sustain life; hence sin leads to death.

The sinner is the servant or slave of sin:
 NAS John 8:34-36   34 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.  35 "And athe slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever.  36 "If therefore the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.
 
 

Jesus said, "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."  Sin enslaves us by enslaving our minds.  Our freedom comes when our minds are free.  This is the context of 8:34-36 (it's verse 32 in fact). 
 
 
 Freeing a slave from his master necessitates paying a ransom. And Jesus is ransom for all:
 NKJ 1 Timothy 2:6 [Christ] gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,
 Ransom is from the Greek lu,tron . From Strong’s 3083 lu,tron lutron {loo'-tron}  Meaning:  1) the price for redeeming, ransom 1a) paid for slaves, captives 1b) for the ransom of life 2) to liberate many from misery and the penalty of their sins.
 Jesus Himself said, His life is the Ransom:
 KJV Matthew 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many
 Ransom is directly related with Redemption.  Redemption is the Greek avpolu,trwsij . From Strong’s  629 avpolu,trwsij apolutrosis {ap-ol-oo'-tro-sis} Meaning:  1) a releasing effected by payment of ransom 1a) redemption, deliverance 1b) liberation procured by the payment
 Our Redemption is through the Blood of Christ.  And Scriptures equate Redemption with Forgiveness:
 KJV Ephesians 1:7 In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace
 The Father Himself said no man can ransom another, because the cost of his redemption is precious:
 KJV Psalm 49:6-8   6 They that trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches;  7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:  8 For the redemption of their soul is precious . . .
 And through Hoseah He declared that He Himself will redeem His people:
 KJV Hosea 13:14   I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death
 And the Father redeemed us through the precious Blood of His Son:
1 Peter 1:18-20   18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;  19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:  20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
 Based on the above Scriptures, I believe that when our Savior died, the ransom was paid, redemption or forgiveness was attained.
 
 

What is it that enslaves us?  It is our minds.  Sin enslaves us by enslaving our minds, which is why we need to know the truth, in order to be set free.  If the problem didn't involve our minds, we wouldn't need to know the truth to be set free.  We need the blood of Christ because we need the truth that it communicates, which frees our minds.  The power of the cross is in what it reveals.  The goodness of God leads us to repentance. 
 
 
 Samie: In the NT, Reconciliation and Atonement are from the same Greek katallagh, .  It is quite clear to me that we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son. Can man undo what God has done? I don't think so.

Once again, reconciliation is something which involves our minds.  If I am angry at you, I cannot be reconciled to you without repentance, which means changing my mind (so I don't continue being angry with you).  Now the problem of anger was never on God's side, because God is love, and because God is love, He gave all heaven to us in giving us Christ.  We need Christ in order that we might repent, and be brought back to God.  It's not a question of man's "undoing" anything God has done, but of man's stopping to be "an enemy in our minds" "alientated from God."  God is not alienated from us, be we from God.  We need to come to peace with God, and Christ is the means of this happening.

NAS 2 Corinthians 5:18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation

Samie:God through Christ has ALREADY reconciled us to Himself.  What more can we do? Can we do any better than what God has done FOR us, to reconcile ourselves to Him? I doubt. 

Again, the problem has never been on God's side.  God so loved the world that He gave His Son.  We need to be reconiled to God.  Those who have heeded Jesus' comments in John 8 *have* been reconciled to God ("you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"), and having been reconciled, or freed, are in position to share this freedom/reconciliation with others, which is the ministry of reconciliation which Paul refers to.

[Samie]

Thanks for the well-thought-out response. Sadly, I can see no Scriptures. You were interested in the payment aspect:

  17 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:

I'm interested in the payment aspect.  I'd be particularly interested from what Christ preached, if possible.  That is, did Christ teach anywhere that the purpose of His death was to pay for sin so that God could forgive us (assuming I've understood you correctly).  If you are unable to provide any Scriptures from Christ's words, that He came to pay for sin in order to enable God to forgive us, then presenting other Scriptures would be OK.  In particular, the part I'm interested in is that God cannot forgive man unless sin is paid for (assuming again, I'm hearing you correctly, and this is what you are saying).

I gave you Jesus speaking of His Life as ransom (Matt 20:28). Paul said Christ is ransom for all (Eph 2:6). And a couple of other verses speaking of ransom and redemption. Then comes your explanation without any Biblical basis cited.   There was almost no attempt in referring to the verses I provided that speak of ransom and redemption, both words being payment-related.

You said God freely forgives. Where in Scriptures is that?  That forgiveness cost the Life of His Son!  It is priceless, costly. And it is ours FREE.  But it was paid for with the Blood of the Lamb which taketh away the sin of the world. Did Scriptures not say the redemption of our souls is costly, precious (Ps 49:7, 8)? And Christ redeemed us to God by His own precious Blood.

 

 ^KJV Revelation 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

 

^NAS Revelation 5:9 And they sang a ^anew song, saying, ^b"Worthy art Thou to take the ¹book, and to break its seals; for Thou wast ^cslain, and didst ^dpurchase for God with Thy blood men from ^eevery tribe and tongue and people and nation.

Just like when a husband presents his wife with a diamond ring he bought from Mellerio dits Meller. His wife received it FREE. But her husband paid for it.  Sorry, but I guess your wonderful explanation cannot take precedence over what Scriptures say.

[Samie]

My take on things is the other way around; God forgives man freely, just like Christ freely forgave sinners in the Gospels, but it is *man* who needs Christ and the cross in order to be reconciled to God.  From the God side, God was already reconciled, and so He gave His Son, but from the man side, we were "enemies in our own mind" and need to be reconciled to God.

The Apostle Paul responds:

Romans 5:10, 11   ¹⁰ For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son,  much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.  ¹¹ And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

In the NT, Reconciliation and Atonement are from the same Greek katallagh, .  It is quite clear to me that we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son. Can man undo what God has done? I don't think so.

^NAS 2 Corinthians 5:18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation

God through Christ has ALREADY reconciled us to Himself.  What more can we do? Can we do any better than what God has done FOR us, to reconcile ourselves to Him? I doubt.

Again, the problem has never been on God's side.  God so loved the world that He gave His Son.  We need to be reconiled to God.

I NEVER said the problem is on God's side, did I?  It is your statement that "we need to be reconciled to God" and to be reconciled we need to do our part.  I presented Scriptures that God did it FOR us through His Son.  God has ALREADY reconciled us to Himself.  Scriptures say "we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son".  It appears you don't believe this part of Scriptures, do you?

Those who have heeded Jesus' comments in John 8 *have* been reconciled to God ("you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free")

That's your own opinion. And I respect it. But I cannot exchange the EXPLICIT statement of Scriptures that "we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son" for your opinion.

[pnattmbtc]

I gave you Jesus speaking of His Life as ransom (Matt 20:28).

Yes, but look at the context.  It has nothing to do with a payment for sin; it's talking about service.  Jesus never said anything about a payment for sin being necessary for God to forgive; not even a hint.

Paul said Christ is ransom for all (Eph 2:6). And a couple of other verses speaking of ransom and redemption. Then comes your explanation without any Biblical basis cited.   There was almost no attempt in referring to the verses I provided that speak of ransom and redemption, both words being payment-related.

I did respond with Scripture.  John 8:32.  and John 3:16.  "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."

There is nothing inherent in the words "ransom" or "redemption" which suggests that a payment is necessary for sin to be forgiven.  Did you know this idea didn't even exist in early Christianity?  It wasn't until 1,000 years later that this idea, or something approaching it, was suggested.  So for hundreds of years Christians were able to understand these words without any idea of a payment being necessary for God to forgive.  So there's nothing inherent in these words that suggests a payment is necessary for God to forgive.

You said God freely forgives. Where in Scriptures is that? 

As I stated earlier, Jesus said, "When You've seen Me, you've seen the Father", and Jesus freely forgave.  Where do we see Jesus requirement payment in order for Him to forgive?  Why would we expect it to be any different for God?  

That forgiveness cost the Life of His Son!  It is priceless, costly.

No!  *God"s* forgiveness *led* to Him giving His Son for us!  This is utterly backwards. We were the ones that needed Christ in order to be forgiven, not God.  Because we needed forgiveness, He gave us His Son.  He didn't give His Son to Himself for payment so He could forgive us, but gave Christ to us so that we could be brought back to God, as Peter puts it.

And it is ours FREE.  But it was paid for with the Blood of the Lamb which taketh away the sin of the world. Did Scriptures not say the redemption of our souls is costly, precious (Ps 49:7, 8)? And Christ redeemed us to God by His own precious Blood.

 

 KJV Revelation 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

 

NAS Revelation 5:9 And they sang a anew song, saying, b"Worthy art Thou to take the 1book, and to break its seals; for Thou wast cslain, and didst dpurchase for God with Thy blood men from eevery tribe and tongue and people and nation.

Just like when a husband presents his wife with a diamond ring he bought from Mellerio dits Meller. His wife received it FREE. But her husband paid for it.  Sorry, but I guess your wonderful explanation cannot take precedence over what Scriptures say.

The problem isn't with the cost, we are in agreement on that.  The problem is with the purpose.  The cost was for us, not for God.

Every passage of Scripture that refers to the reconciliation or atonement, or to the propitiation, always represents God as the one who makes this atonement, reconciliation, or propitiation, in Christ; we are always the ones atoned for, the ones to be reconciled. For us it was done, in order that, as Peter says, he might bring us to God. (George Fifield; SDA pioneer)

[Samie]

Samie: I gave you Jesus speaking of His Life as ransom (Matt 20:28).

Pnatt: Yes, but look at the context.  It has nothing to do with a payment for sin; it's talking about service.

Here comes your context again. Nothing to do with payment when He is speaking of ransom? English may not be my first language, but I think I know what ransom is. Your words vs. those of Scriptures:

^KJV Matthew 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

                                               

^NAS Matthew 26:28 for ^athis is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for ^bmany for forgiveness of sins.

 

^KJV 1 Corinthians 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

 

^NKJ Colossians 1:14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.

 

^NIV 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.

 

^NRS Hebrews 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

 

^ESV Revelation 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation,

 

^KJV Revelation 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

 

^NAS Revelation 5:9 And they sang a ^anew song, saying, ^b"Worthy art Thou to take the ¹book, and to break its seals; for Thou wast ^cslain, and didst ^dpurchase for God with Thy blood men from ^eevery tribe and tongue and people and nation.

[pnattmbtc]

jackson: Because God has decredd that the wages of sin is death, and we have sinned. His justice is perfect, and only death for sin can bring perfect justice.

 Did God decree that the wages of sin is death, or is this simply a fact?  For example, if I say, "Don't drink this poison; doing so will be fatal", am I decreeing that the poison is fatal?  Or is it already fatal, and I'm warning you not to take it.

A lot of how we view the texts you mentioned has to do with how we see this issue.  If sin is fatal because it separates us from God, resulting in our death, then the whole salvation process will involve our being reconciled to God, so that sin will not cause our death.  On the other hand, if the problem is that God has decreed something in a sense artificial, that sin will be punished by death, then there could be a solution to *that* problem which is along different lines.

I say "in a sense artificial" to mean that if God had may the decree, then sin would not have resulted in death.

For example, regarding "propitiation" here is what Waggoner wrote (of whom EGW remarked he could teach righteousness by faith better than she could)

If instead of the long word, “propitiation,” we read “sacrifice,” we shall simplify matters a great deal, because the shorter word is more common. Then let it be remembered that God Himself has provided the sacrifice, or the propitiation. Thus we read, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.” Romans 3:23-25.PTUK November 9, 1893, p. 500.14

Notice that it is God who has set forth Christ as the propitiation or sacrifice. Then since God provides the sacrifice for sin, it surely cannot be that He has enmity against sinners. “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.” John 3:16. “God is love” (1 John 4:16); but “the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” Romans 8:7. The enmity that is to be appeased is all on the part of men, and God, who is sinned against, provides the means of reconciliation. -PTUK November 9, 1893, p. 501.1

[pnattmbtc]

Samie: I gave you Jesus speaking of His Life as ransom (Matt 20:28).

Pnatt: Yes, but look at the context.  It has nothing to do with a payment for sin; it's talking about service.

Samie:Here comes your context again. Nothing to do with payment when He is speaking of ransom? English may not be my first language, but I think I know what ransom is. Your words vs. those of Scriptures:

 

KJV Matthew 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

 I wrote this Samie: "Jesus never said anything about a payment for sin being necessary for God to forgive; not even a hint."(the part that you left out) in regards to Matt. 20:28.  Context is important when looking at what I'm writing too!  There is a payment involved, but the payment is for us, not so God can forgive us.  Here is the context of Matthew 20:28

25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.

26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:

28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

It's clear that what I wrote about this passage is correct.  Jesus is speaking about service, and there is not a hint of his making a payment so that God can forgive us.

Regarding the other texts, the same point applies I made earlier.  What I'm disputing is not that Christ made a sacrifice for our sins, but the purpose for that sacrifice.  I'm saying the purpose for the sacrifice was *for us*; *we* needed the sacrifice, not God. 

[pnattmbtc]

EGW quote for jackson, dealing with what the cross accomplishes:

How, then, are we to be saved? "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness," so the Son of man has been lifted up, and everyone who has been deceived and bitten by the serpent may look and live. "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of theworld." John 1:29. The light shining from the cross reveals the love of God. His love is drawing us to Himself. If we do not resist this drawing, we shall be led to the foot of the cross in repentance for the sins that have crucified the Saviour. Then the Spirit of God through faith produces a new life in the soul. The thoughts and desires are brought into obedience to the will of Christ. The heart, the mind, are created anew in the image of Him who works in us to subdue all things to Himself. Then the law of God is written in the mind and heart, and we can say with Christ, "I delight to do Thy will, O my God." Ps. 40:8.

[pnattmbtc]

It would be impossible for man to make a sacrifice that would atone for sin. Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” Micah 6:6-8.PTUK November 9, 1893, p. 501.4

Even a human sacrifice would not avail, not because God requires something more valuable, but because it cannot remove sin. The sacrifice which God provides, and which He alone can provide, is one that will remove sin, and thus destroy the enmity that is in man’s heart against God. God gives to us His life in Christ, and that life can take away sin, as has been demonstrated by the fact that it has conquered death. “There is none good but one, that is God.” Therefore the only way in which man can become good is to be filled with the life of God, and this He gives us freely in Christ. PTUK November 9, 1893, p. 501.5

[8thdaypriest]

This discussion reminds me of Kholberg's stages of moral development.  I first heard about the "stages of moral development" from Dick Winn, a professor at PUC.  I'm going to post a link to a teaching I did on those stages, at my web site.  This teaching has gotten more hits than anything I have ever written. 

http://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/37-Kholberg.pdf

If God was simply warning Adam that eating from the "Tree of Knowledge" would RESULT in death (because of the way that we were created), then God was NOT SAYING, "I will kill you". 

And if that is the case, then everything God did after Adam ate the "forbidden fruit" was His attempt to win mankind BACK from man's continuing to eat the "forbidden fruit" (to sin).

And this would include sending His own Son, trying to communicate to us that we CAN "go home", that God will heal whatever damage has been done within us, by the "fruit".   

When medical missionaries first tried to "reach" isolated tribes in the jungles of South America, and Africa, many of them were killed by the "natives" BECAUSE the natives did not UNDERSTAND that the missionaries were trying to help them.  When they killed the missionaries, the natives went on dying of diseases that could easily have been "cured".   Jesus was "the missionary". 

[pnattmbtc]

The word “atonement” means at-one-ment. Sin had brought misery, and misery

had brought a misunderstanding of God’s character. Thus men had come to hate God

instead of loving him; and hating him, the one Father, men also hated man, their brother.

Thus, instead of the one family and the one Father, men were separated from God and

from each other, and held apart by hatred and selfishness. There must be an atonement.

An atonement can be made only by God so revealing his love, in spite of sin and

sorrow, that men’s hearts will be touched to tenderness; and they, being delivered from

Satan’s delusions, may see how fully and terribly they have misrepresented the divine

One, and so done despite to this Spirit of his grace. Thus they may be led, as returning

brethren, to come back to the Father’s house of blissful unity.

 

The atonement is not to appease God’s wrath, so that man dare come to him, but it

is to reveal his love, so that they will come to him. It was not Christ reconciling God unto

the world, but God in Christ reconciling the world to himself. It is nowhere said that God

needed to be reconciled to us; he says, “I have not forsaken you, but you have forsaken

me.” And Paul says, “I beseech you in Christ’s stead, Be ye reconciled to God.” It was

this question that needed to be answered: How can it be that God is our Father, and that

he is love, when we suffer so much, and oftentimes so unjustly, and yet no voice breaks

the silence, no Father’s touch soothes our sorrow? The question was to be answered by

God, through Christ, breaking the silence, and through him healing the sick, and raising

the dead, prophetic of the time when, Satan’s power being broken, all tears shall be wiped

away.” pp.100-1

 

Truly “he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the

middle wall of partition between us,” so that we are no longer “strangers and foreigners,

but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God.” He hath made the atonement, having reconciled us to God, so that, through him, man with man and man

with God shall yet be brought into blissful unity. And not only man with man and man

with God, but in the love of God as revealed in Jesus Christ shall all intelligent, morally

accountable creatures find their rallying-point, their rest, and universal brotherhood of

being, “that in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all

things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him, in who

we also have obtained an inheritance.”

 

How the devil’s falsehoods flee as we behold God revealed in Jesus Christ! How

the estranged soul comes back to it native home, and becomes at one with God! pp. 102-3. 

 

It is the goodness of God that leads us back to the Father’s house in repentance.

p.105.

 

The death of Christ becomes significant only when taken in connection with his

life of self-sacrifice, which led to and was the cause of his death. Only thus does the

death have power to reveal God’s love so as to reconcile us to him… Let us then ever

exalt the life and death of the Son of God as the world’s hope of salvation. It was these

that made the atonement; and there is “none other name under heaven given among men,

whereby we must be saved.” p.107.

 

What does the incarnation mean?—Simply this, that God was in Christ,

reconciling the world unto himself; that Jesus was divine, and yet human, perfect God

and perfect man, Son of God and Son of man; that with the divine arm he might grasp the

throne of the Infinite, while with the human arm he encircles humanity, with all it woes

and needs, with all its hungerings and heartaches, and encircles is to lift it up, to unite it

with God, thus making the atonement. p.109.

 

“Some conscientious but timid soul may ask, “Is not this denying the vicarious

atonement?” I answer, No; a thousand times no. It is only lifting and broadening and

enlarging our conception of the vicarious atonement, and bringing it into harmony with

what we know of God’s character, as revealed in his work and his word. Jesus is still the

world’s only Saviour. Both in life and in death he suffered vicariously, bearing our griefs

and carrying our sorrows, — “suffering the Just for the unjust, that he might bring us to

God,” that is, that he might make an atonement.

Christ’s death was not the result of an outpouring of the Father’s wrath; it was the

result of the world’s violation of the Father’s law of love. p.110

[pnattmbtc]

The previous post is by George Fifield, probably from the 1890's.  He was a GC Secretary of some sort, maybe Treasurer, don't remember, but I love his stuff.  Sorry about the formatting.

He wrote a book called, "God is Love" which I believe is available from Amazon.

[Samie]

 I wrote this Samie: "Jesus never said anything about a payment for sin being necessary for God to forgive; not even a hint."(the part that you left out) in regards to Matt. 20:28.  Context is important when looking at what I'm writing too!  There is a payment involved, but the payment is for us, not so God can forgive us.  Here is the context of Matthew 20:28

It's clear that what I wrote about this passage is correct.  Jesus is speaking about service, and there is not a hint of his making a payment so that God can forgive us.

Regarding the other texts, the same point applies I made earlier.  What I'm disputing is not that Christ made a sacrifice for our sins, but the purpose for that sacrifice.  I'm saying the purpose for the sacrifice was *for us*; *we* needed the sacrifice, not God. 

We are in agreement that there’s payment involved in Christ’s giving His Life for us. For you, what is that payment for? For me, I say, it is to ransom or redeem us from sin because sinners are slaves of sin (John 8:34).  Having been ransomed or redeemed from sin, we are reconciled to God by His death (Rom 5:10). Also, Scriptures equate redemption with forgiveness:

^NKJ Ephesians 1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace

Scriptures say “without shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness”.  You say that God freely forgives.  Are you saying shedding of blood is NOT needed for forgiveness? Can God forgive us without the death of Christ? Please explain your answer.

For me, shedding of blood is needed for forgiveness.  Without His death, we cannot be forgiven.  As atonement in the old covenant was done through the blood of animals, in the New Covenant, atonement was through the Blood of the Lamb of God. And Scriptures say that when atonement is made, man is forgiven and cleansed from sin.

 

^KJVLeviticus 16:30   For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD.

Also see Lev 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:10, 13, 16, 18; 6:7; 19:22; Num 15:25, 28

[pnattmbtc]

We are in agreement that there’s payment involved in Christ’s giving His Life for us. For you, what is that payment for? For me, I say, it is to ransom or redeem us from sin because sinners are slaves of sin (John 8:34).

 We agree on this.  What I'm asking is, what is the purpose involved?  In this case, Jesus tells us in vs. 32:

32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

So the servitude of sin involves the mind, and freedom from the servitude involves freeing the mind (the truth shall set you free).

Scripture tells us that we were enemies in our own mind, alienated from God.  There's an old song which speaks of "how to make to lovers from friends"; here it's "from enemies".  God makes friends from enemies by revealing the truth to them, regardless of the cost to Himself.  when we realize the truth, that truth reconciles us to God.

The payment involved is not a payment God makes to Himself, or for Himself, but for us.  Another way of putting it is that God did was was necessary to reconcile us, regardless of the cost to Himself. 

[pnattmbtc]

Scriptures say “without shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness”.  You say that God freely forgives.  Are you saying shedding of blood is NOT needed for forgiveness? Can God forgive us without the death of Christ? Please explain your answer.

That God freely forgives is clearly revealed by Jesus Christ, who said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father."  Was any payment necessary for Jesus to forgive?  No.  We see on several occasions that Jesus forgave sin, often at the surprise of onlookers, but He never required payment to do so.

When we speak of forgiveness, there are two parties involved.  One is the offending party, and the other is the offended party.  If you do something which causes you to be in debt to me, I can forgive that debt, or insist that it be paid.  In the case of God, God forgave the debt, but forgiveness when it comes to relationships involves more than financial matters, so here is another analogy.

Let's say you thought I did something wrong, like talked behind your back, and you, being mad at me, did something bad against me.  So now we are at odds with one another, because you thought I did something bad against you (I didn't), and because you did something bad against me (which you did).  Now I may choose to forgive you the bad thing you did against me, but we cannot be reconciled until you realize that the bad thing you thought I did against you, I really didn't do, and repent for your wrong thinking and wrong doing.

This is analogous  to the situation God found Himself in.  We were "alienated in our own minds" "enemies of God."  God needed to do whatever was necessary to convince us that He had not wronged us, but we had wronged Him (thinking that He had done bad things against us, or is angry at us, or a host of many other things that would cause us to be alienated against God, enemies in our mind), and what it took was the gift of Jesus Christ, whose whole life was a sacrifice, revealing to us the truth about God.  "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."

So it is the case that death was necessary in order for their to be forgiveness, but not because this is something *God* required.  God does not require any inducement to forgive, because God is love.  *We* require inducement to be reconciled to God, to repent, so we can experience the forgiveness God has been wanting us to receive the whole time.

[Samie]

You have given the explanation. Thanks.

Now the direct answer, please. Can God forgive us without the death of Christ?

[pnattmbtc]

You have given the explanation. Thanks.

Now the direct answer, please. Can God forgive us without the death of Christ?

It depends upon how you view forgiveness, as involving one party or two.  If forgiveness involves two parties, then no, for the reasons I explained. 

[Samie]

It depends upon how you view forgiveness, as involving one party or two.

Since when did forgiveness involve only one party?  Of course, there are always two parties, the forgiver and the forgiven.

 If forgiveness involves two parties, then no, for the reasons I explained. 

I see. And I guess, that's not in accord with what Scriptures say.  Sorry, but your explanation CANNOT supersede Scriptures. And I think I have provided plenty.

It's a pleasure discussing with you, brother.

[pnattmbtc]

 

Samie: Since when did forgiveness involve only one party?  Of course, there are always two parties, the forgiver and the forgiven.

Given that two parties exist, then the idea you are suggesting cannot be correct, since one of the two parties doesn't exist.

     On 9/6/2015, 4:44:28, pnattmbtc said:
 If forgiveness involves two parties, then no, for the reasons I explained. 

Samie: I see. And I guess, that's not in accord with what Scriptures say.  

But it is!  If you look at the passages which deal with people being forgiven, you will see, in every case, that the forgiven person exists.  For example, consider the publican who cried out, "God be merciful to me a sinner."  He was forgiven, and Jesus said he walked away justified.  This could not have happened had he not existed.

Consider also Romans 4, where Paul is aruging for justification by faith, which he calls "justification apart from works", citing David as an exampler.  He quotes from David's prayer of repentance in Psalm 51 as an example of justification by faith, where David was forgiven.  David's repentance was a necessary part of that forgiveness.

Sorry, but your explanation CANNOT supersede Scriptures. And I think I have provided plenty.

It's a pleasure discussing with you, brother.

You haven't presented any Scriptures to back up your point of view.  You just cited Scripture, and you have ideas as to what these Scriptures mean to you, and you just repeated what you already believe.  You haven't made any sort of argument that your belief is correct.

Let's consider one specific example, the word "ransom".  For 1000 years this word was commonly used within Christianity, without your idea being referenced.  None of the Christians, for certuries, viewed the ransom as a payment so that God could forgive us.  So this is proof positive that the word "ransom" need not be understood the way you are understanding it.

What argument can you present from Scripture that "ransom" should be understood the way you understand it?

Edited September 8, 2015 by pnattmbtc

[Samie]

Slow down, Pnatt. You look confused. Here are your two statements that gave you out:

1.  "Given that two parties exist, then the idea you are suggesting cannot be correct, since one of the two parties doesn't exist."

2.  " If you look at the passages which deal with people being forgiven, you will see, in every case, that the forgiven person exists."

In #1 you say that one of the two parties doesn't exist, and in #2 you say the forgiven person exists. Which party doesn't exist when God always exists and you say the forgiven person exists?

Have you forgotten that God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world?  Has your memory failed you that God calls those things which do not exist as though they did?  Forgiveness of mankind is God's work.  And Scriptures tell us there can be no forgiveness without shedding of blood (Heb 9:22), the Blood of our Savior Who is RANSOM for all (Matt 20:28; 1 Tim 2:6).  And RANSOM is payment, both then and now.

Sorry, brother. But I cannot exchange Scriptures for your wonderfully concocted explanations.