Featured Bought then Redeemed

"Christ bought, paid the ransom, for all mankind, thus becoming the means of salvation for the whole of humanity, 1 John 2:2."

How is this "potential Ransom"?

 

The passage says:

"Christ bought, paid the ransom, for all mankind, thus becoming the means of salvation for the whole of humanity, 1 John 2:2."

Compare your version to the version that appears in God's Word.

Christ bought, paid the Ransom, for all mankind, thus becoming the means of salvation for the whole of humanity.

Your argument is with the passages, not with me.

Penal Substitution theorists cannot understand how the passage can be true - that Christ bought, paid the ransom for all mankind, becoming the means of salvation for the whole of humanity. But rather than examining their theory they rework the passage.

That is wrong.

 

Yes. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

But under Penal Substitution that equates to universal salvation. They have to change the passage to define "whole world" to "all nations" or "people groups".

That is not the only verse Penal Substitution theorists change, but it is an important one.

Classical Christianity can accept that verse as written yet not come out with universal salvation.

 

It literally means the whole world (all mankind). John makes this clear in the following verses when he speaks of those who know, and those who do not know, Christ.

How does it not equate to universal salvation? Under the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement it has to. But under traditional Christianity it doesn't.

You don't need to change the Bible. You need to change your theory.

 

That is not vague at all.

I don't know where you are coming up with this "potential payment". You hold some strange views. And you are wrong. Christ died for our sins ...ONCE for all. There is no potential payment. There is no potential redemption.

By traditional Christianity I mean the "Classic View" as opposed to the "Latin View" when it comes to Atonement positions. Traditionally Christians affirmed one of several types of Ransom Theory (Christ suffered and died under the evil of this world, under Satan, as a Ransom....either paying a ransom to death, to Satan, or to no entity but as a price paid or a cost).

In theology there are two basic paths of understanding the Atonement. You have the Classic view, which was the main category prior to the 10th Century, and the Latin view.

The primary understanding of Atonement prior to the Latin View is Classic Christianity. It is mainly expressed in a form of Ransom Theory. Christ suffered under the powers of evil to redeem us from its bondage.

The Latin View focuses on a type of substitution (a shift from unity to replacement). This is the position of the RCC. The Reformers revised this to Penal Substitution Theory (replacing merit with justice).

I suggest you purchase a good systematic theology, or topic specific book because I am not going to restate multiple threads to explain to you what you should already know prior to discussing a topic.

You jump in to strongly claim your view correct....then you admit you don't even know enough about opposing views to make that claim.

Take care of your own ignorance, reevaluate your position, then come back.

 

It just dawned on me that you are simply repeating talking points you have heard from others in different debate and regurgitating them here.

You are the only one talking about a potential payment.

I never said anything about a potential payment. @Van never said anything about a potential payment.

Over the years such strawmen surface in these discussions. Sometimes they come about due to ignorance, other times intentionally to cloud the discussion (when people cannot adequately defend their beliefs they use strawmen, ad hominem, change the topic....anything to hide their insecurities concerning their faith).

I think you may have simply misunderstood a concept being discussed

What made you think @Van or I believed in some potential payment?

 

You asked me and I told you. That is not being slippery. I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you.

I will once again offer my Christian tradition (you asked for the tradition I was steeped in, whatever that means):

I come from a Southern Baptist tradition.
I was saved in a small SBC church in Marietta GA.
I moved to Nashville and joined a SBC church.
I live in SC now and am a member of a SBC church.

My tradition is evangelical Baptist. I am a Southern Baptist.

I am steeped in the writings of Charles Spurgeon, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, John Calvin, J.I. Packer, John MacArthur, and John Piper. I also have extensively read Tim Keller, D.W. Moody and A W. Tozer.

The book that has impacted me the most (aside from the Bible) is Piper's Desiring God.

I earned a Bachelor degree in Religion from a Baptist college and a Master degree in Theology from a Baptist seminary (associated with the SBC).

I have preached and taught at several SBC churches.

I celebrate Christmas as a time to reflect on the Incarnation but my favorite is Resurrection Sunday (the whole week, actually).

That is my tradition. If you do not understand then ask, but don't pretend I am avoiding answering.

As I said, when I speak of traditional Christianity in context of the Atonement I am referring to the "classic view" as opposed to the "Latin view". That is, God sent His Son to redeem man, He offered Jesus as an offering, He was pleased to crush Him, the Cross was God's predetermined plan. Christ gave Himself as an offering. He was obedient even to death on a cross. He died for our sins. He ransomed us from sin and death, freed us from its bondage, was made sin for us, became a curse for us, suffered under the powers of darkness for us, and by His stripes we are healed. He became one of us, was tempted in all points as we are, but remained obedient. He died in solidarity with man so that men could live in unity with Him.

This is called the "classic view" because it was the Christian understanding until the 11th century when Anselm developed the Satisfaction Theory, then Aquinas reworked that theory, then the Reformers reformed that theory by replacing merit with justice (the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement). Anselm to the Reformers is called the "Latin view" because it began in the Roman Catholic Church. It introduces a type of substitution and removes Satan as the object of Christ's suffering and death.

Again, if you do not understand ask. Don't pretend I avoided answering your question directly.