I know what the epistle is about and Paul was not addressing women in general as you seem to suggest.
ECT Who was not ransomed?
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
I know what the epistle is about and Paul was not addressing women in general as you seem to suggest.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
aargh . . .
Check the Greek word for woman and check the context in which the word is used. It should fall in place for you.
:cheers:
Sonnet
New member
Such an interpretation would have Paul asserting that there is:
One God and one mediator between God and men (not all men but all kinds of men), the man Jesus Christ.
Nothing in the text necessitates your imposition. Even Spurgeon noted that Paul could have explicitly used 'all kinds' if so inspired. The scripture you quoted here clarifies the extent:
For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
Regarding the first occurrence of 'many', what must it mean? And what, then, must we say regarding the meaning of the second occurrence?
Musterion said: “Christ ransomed every man, but many choose to disbelieve and so all do not benefit from His ransoming them.”
Nang said in response: “You are claiming that unbelief overrules the will of God. You are insinuating that the price Christ paid in ransom, falls short of achieving His goal.”
Would it help to know who the kidnapper is?
We agree the person being redeemed (set free to be able to go to the father as his little child [the only way we can come to God]) are children of God.
We agree that Deity is the payer of an unbelievable huge ransom payment.
We agree that the ransom payment is the cruel tortured, humiliated and murdered Christ.
What we do not agree to is “who is the kidnapper”?
If we say the kidnapper is:
“Sin”, “death” or some other intangible thing, why would anything have to be paid, to some nonbeing and what would sin do with this payment?
“Satan”, we have Deity paying a kidnapper that deserves nothing and Deity could just as easily take the children back without paying anything so it would be wrong to pay “satan” in that case.
“God”, why would God have to kidnap his own children? What value to God is there in Christ’s tortured, humiliated and murdered body? Would God not personally have preferred the blood of Christ to remain flowing through Christ’s veins? Does it not sound silly to have the Father paying himself to give to himself his children?
What about, the responsible person that is holding the child of God back from going to the Father. The person holding the nonbeliever back from becoming a child of God and rushing to the arms of God is the nonbeliever himself. Quit blaming others and realize when we were nonbelievers we were the kidnappers holding back the child within us from the father. Nonbelievers only has to accept the huge ransom payment being offered by deity.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Satan was involved with deceiving Eve and tempting Adam, but the guilt of the trespass was fully placed upon Adam for disobeying God.
The Covenant of Works (Law) was Adam's to partake, but instead, he broke the Covenant and plunged all his posterity (whom he represented in his creation) into bondage and death.
The Only answer to this tragedy and the Only remedy, was that God promised to provide a Seed who would crush the head of Satan; qualifying Himself as being Savior who would redeem His people from their sin condition.
You still did not answer: "Who is the kidnapper?"
Nang
TOL Subscriber
There was no "kidnapper"; however, due to the sin of Adam, all mankind became bond-slaves to serving sin, death, and the devil.
The price paid by Jesus on the cross, freed His people from this bondage. Hebrews 2:14-17
Sonnet
New member
The sins of the people.
Jesus, Paul, Peter, John and the Hebrew writer does not say it is like a ransom payment, but says it is a ransom payment.
You did good the realize: “The price paid by Jesus on the cross, freed His people from this bondage.”, but avoid telling us “who” was paid this ransom?
You talk about us at one time being caught up in “sin, death and satan”, but who is holding us in the pigsty of life, would the same person that held the prodigal son in the pigsty starving to death be holding the nonbeliever, because that person holding the prodigal son was the prodigal son himself? The prodigal son could have returned home at any time, but it was the prodigal son himself (the kidnapper) holding back on the repenting.
You do not have to "pay" an intangible like sin.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Sin is tangible. It is a real condition of bondage, caused by fear of death.
See Hebrews 2:14-18 to see how the "ransom" freed the brethren of Jesus Christ.
"If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. . ." John 8:36a
Mat 2:3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
I think you have to take a very liberal definition of “tangible”, to call sin “tangible”, so:
Is sin an object?
Can sin itself change or can the sinner change after accepting something?
What value would the ransom payment of Christ’s tortured, humiliated and murdered body have for sin?
If Christ made the ransom payment to sin, how has sin itself changed or is it the sinner that changed his/her fear of death?
Is the devil still with us or was the devil destroyed? Is death still with us? If the devil and death are still around than it must be the power of death the devil held over humans that was destroyed by Christ going to the cross, but does that power manifest itself in the fear humans have of death? If man’s fear of death is taken away by the death and resurrection of Christ does that take the devils power over man’s life away?
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Sin is a human condition.
Sin cannot be reversed, but only eliminated. And the only way to eliminate sin is to die. The wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23
No act of the human will can change sin. Sin must be removed, which requires death.
Christ became sin on behalf of His people, and was lifted up on the cross to suffer death, for their healing. See the significance in Numbers 21:8-9; John 3:14-16
Christ's ransom payment, was His human life. He suffered death to eliminate the sin condition of His children. Those who look to Jesus Christ lifted up in death as the remedy for their fallen condition, and believe in their heart God has raised Him from the dead(Romans 10:9), will not suffer the second death unto judgment unto hellfire. Rev. 20:6; John 11:25-26
The devil still roams the earth but his power to deceive is destroyed by the Gospel of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He is spiritually bound from the sons of God who are sanctified by the Truth of God. Rev. 20:1-3
Death is still in the world, because multitudes remain in their sins.
Those for whom Christ died, do not fear physical death any longer, because they have faith in the resurrection to everlasting life, in Christ.
Unbelievers continue to be held in bondage to sin, fear of death, and the devil.
Yes.
Believers in Jesus Christ, who were once enslaved and held in bondage by Satan, have been freed to serve Jesus Christ in righteousness. He is their new and gracious "Master."
Romans 6:17-23
Sonnet
New member
Regarding those that are snake-bitten in the source of Jesus' analogy, whom do they represent of those that might benefit from the lifting up of Jesus?
That is, whom do they point to in the target of His analogy?
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Those who would believe . . The elect sons of God gifted with faith to look to the Sin-Bearer for healing and life.