Ransom paid to who?

[jlay]

If Christ can forgive sins without a sacrifice ( a ransom paid) then why does God demand it?

Are you speaking of OT sacrifice or the sacrifice of Christ?

[KBCid]

The "debate" is to WHOM the ransom was paid and it is, of course, not that clear ( hence various views on the matter).

The debate should not be a debate. The text of the bible is quite clear on who is paying what to whom and why they are paying it. God makes a law or rule. He then states what the consequesnce will be if you break his rules. In the case of Adam and eve's disobeyance a life was the payment for breaking the rule. All men to this day still pay that price since we are all "man" or mankind and adam and eve were considered man / mankind. Only God has the authority to make a rule and only God has the authority and power to enforce the consequence for breaking his rules. Thus, it is clear that by his word things are begun and by his word things continue and by his word things are ended. Since he is the only rule maker and enforcer you cannot possibly pay the consequence to any other entity to satisfy the offence commited against his rules.
If someone were to infer that they could pay the ransom to satan then they are indirectly asserting that satan would have the power to override the consequence required for breaking God's rule. Thus, taking from God his authority and power to enforce. Children like to play the game of pitting moms authority vs. dads authority all the time because essentially mom and dad have equal powers. However in God's own word he states there is no one equivalent to play him against. You cannot override his stated consequences by making supplication to any another entity.

I am not sure we can use that as "evidence" that the ransom of ALL OUR sins was paid to God since, according to what was written in Exodus, only those 20 years and over pay.

What? are you serious? You apparently don't understand how God set-up his governing architecture. Let us just as an analogy refer to how current american governing rules work. If one of your children under the age of maturity comes to my house and breaks a window who do you suppose is responsible for paying the consequences? Let me enlighten you on this point very clearly... You the parent are responsible for your children. You will pay the price for their actions.
God's governing method was quite similar in the old testament times. A man of mature age was head of his house. All the children of less than mature age were his responsibility. A mans house was his kingdom just as God's house is his kingdom.

Leviticus 16:6 And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and make an atonement for himself, and for his house.

Note who Aaron had to offer a sin offering for; 1) himself, 2) and for his house

Do you really think that a stuctural house commits sin? or do you suppose that house in this context is inclusive of the family members under his governmental control? notice carefully what God said to moses in horeb;

Deuteronomy 4:10 ... Gather me the people together, and I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children.

The parents are commanded to teach their children...

Deuteronomy 6:6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
Deuteronomy 6:7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

The parents are to teach their children diligently... and why do you suppose that the parents were commanded to do such a thing?

1Samuel 3:13-14 For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; because his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not. And therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor offering for ever.

The parent is responsible for their children and they have been instructed by God to control their 'house' a certain way;

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Ephesians 6:1-4 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;) That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

But you are right that the sacrifical system was obsolete and it was such even BEFORE Christ paid the price for Our Sins, actually the temple system in of itself was obsolete the moment Jesus came to be.

The sacrifical system was not obsolete, it was a temporary institution that provided understanding of just how serious it is disobey God and a shadow of what it would take to make up for such actions. Even today most people don't really comprehend what cost is involved for paying the penalty of disobeying God.
Suppose for a moment you owned a horse ranch and you had a prize stud that produced foals that could be sold for $150,000.00, then
suppose further that one of the children in your household sinned and you had to kill your prize horse to satisfy the penalty of that sin so that your child wouldn't have to die. How would you feel?. Actually living through this type of situation should be very enlightening.

I think the question is, why would God demand of his Son a payment to Himself that could be simply "written off" by Himself?

God didn't demand that his son pay him for our sin. Christ offered his life willingly just as any of us would willingly offer our lives in exchange for our loved ones. Christ offered to pay our required payment because once God's word came about that required a consequence for breaking his rules it could not be removed. God doesn't lie or change his word.

John 10:15-18 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Did you read the above? Christ said quite clearly "and I lay down my life for the sheep" Christs father loved Christ because "because I lay down my life". Christ didn't sacrifice himself because his father said he had to, he very clearly stated "but I lay it down of myself", "I have power to lay it down" all God his father did was to give Christ the free choice "This commandment have I received of my Father"

[PaulSacramento]

If Christ can forgive sins without a sacrifice ( a ransom paid) then why does God demand it?

Are you speaking of OT sacrifice or the sacrifice of Christ?

What I was saying is, IF Christ's sacrifice was a ransom (payment" to God so that God (presumably) would forgive our sins, then How could Jesus forgive the sins on others WITHOUT any "payment' on their part when He was here with Us?

[PaulSacramento]

The debate should not be a debate

The fact that it is and has been for centuries speaks volumes.
It maybe "clear cut" for you my friend and it certainly seems that you feel comfortable in your view, but it isn't so clear cut for many others obviously.
In my Theology class it was one of the most debated questions, hence my curiosity about asking it here ( and in a couple of other forums of course).

[Seraph]

Interesting topic. Answering the OP, I think of it not so much as a ransom being paid, but God satisfying his requirement for justice. I don't really think it's possible for God to owe anybody anything, so I don't think Jesus' work would be to pay off the devil or anyone else. At the same time, I don't think it's Jesus paying a ransom to God, since the plan of salvation was God's from the very start. If God were to forgive all without payment, His justice wouldn't be satisfied. If He condemned everyone without a chance at forgivness, His mercy wouldn't be satisfied. This in addition to the fact that God wants to demonstrate how far He is willing to go to save His people.

Just my initial feelings. Somebody might be able to use scripture to completely tear it apart in the very next post.

[jlay]

Let's remember that the whole creation groans. (Rom. 8:22) God was in Christ reconciling the whole world to Himself.
I think a hermanuetic of humility is a good idea. Many atonement theories are pitted against another. When they both may in fact have truth in them. And I'm not advocating that all are right. If you'd asked my five years ago, I'd of hands down said Anslems view of Penal Substitution was the way or the highway.

With humanity there are two elements of sin. We are in one sense the victims of sin. We are bent towards it in our fallen nature. For example, you don't have to teach a child to lie or steal. They will do it almost naturally. But, we are also culpable. We are marked with the image of God, and all men have the work of the law (right and wrong) written on their conscience. Romans 2:14,15

What I was saying is, IF Christ's sacrifice was a ransom (payment" to God so that God (presumably) would forgive our sins, then How could Jesus forgive the sins on others WITHOUT any "payment' on their part when He was here with Us?

If I was stabbing a guess at, the first verse that would hit my mind is, Matt. 28:18.

In fact the Christus Victor stuff I have read, which does speak to the ransom idea, says that God can forgive sins apart from a ransom. These theories tend to take exception with the substitution theories because it they see it painting God as needing to have a blood lust satisfied.

Interesting topic. Got to run for now.