Are you familiar with the various theories on the atonement?
Perhaps you have heard of the penal substitutionary theory of atonement. This is a very popular one, and you are likely to have inherited it. But...
Did you know that there are actually multiple positions? Each have their strengths and weaknesses. Here are some of the major theories:
1. Christus Victor Theory 2. Ransom Theory 3. Satisfaction Theory 4. Penal Substitutionary Theory 5. Moral Influence Theory 6. Governmental Theory 7. Scapegoat Theory
I am partial to the Christus Victor/Ransom/Moral Influence theories. I think a form of Substitutionary theory fits nicely with the Ransom theory, but not in a penal substitutionary form.
But what about you? What sorts of questions do you have about them? Which one do you hold to, and why? Is there a runner-up?
I want to hear what you think!
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2026 6:36 am
Scarlet_Teardrops
Are you familiar with the various theories on the atonement?
Perhaps you have heard of the penal substitutionary theory of atonement. This is a very popular one, and you are likely to have inherited it. But...
Did you know that there are actually multiple positions? Each have their strengths and weaknesses. Here are some of the major theories:
1. Christus Victor Theory 2. Ransom Theory 3. Satisfaction Theory 4. Penal Substitutionary Theory 5. Moral Influence Theory 6. Governmental Theory 7. Scapegoat Theory
I am partial to the Christus Victor/Ransom/Moral Influence theories. I think a form of Substitutionary theory fits nicely with the Ransom theory, but not in a penal substitutionary form.
But what about you? What sorts of questions do you have about them? Which one do you hold to, and why? Is there a runner-up?
I want to hear what you think!
From what I am researching I think there are a few that cover aspects of atonement that I agree with presently. My thoughts on each are below.
• Moral Influence - I believe Christ's work on the cross does show God's great love, and that it is a motivator, but I do not believe that it is the main factor in convincing man to belief. The inciting work is of the Holy Spirit from which we then can perceive God's love and be morally influenced (respond in love to do actions that are pleasing to the Lord).
• Christus Victor - Jesus Christ has certainly died in order to defeat the powers of sin, death, and the devil.
• Penal Substitution - Jesus' sacrifice satisfies God's justice, without which we would not be able to be reconciled with God.
====
I do not hold to Ransom theory as God is not beholden to Satan, especially as far as justice is concerned, but allows Satan to have certain freedoms that are for God's purposes and ultimately give glory to God. (Not that that's Satan's motivation... xd)
Elora Lore
Vice Captain
Bashful Shapeshifter
Offline
Scarlet_Teardrops Captain
Sparkly Genius
Offline
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2026 10:53 am
Elora Lore
Scarlet_Teardrops
Are you familiar with the various theories on the atonement?
Perhaps you have heard of the penal substitutionary theory of atonement. This is a very popular one, and you are likely to have inherited it. But...
Did you know that there are actually multiple positions? Each have their strengths and weaknesses. Here are some of the major theories:
1. Christus Victor Theory 2. Ransom Theory 3. Satisfaction Theory 4. Penal Substitutionary Theory 5. Moral Influence Theory 6. Governmental Theory 7. Scapegoat Theory
I am partial to the Christus Victor/Ransom/Moral Influence theories. I think a form of Substitutionary theory fits nicely with the Ransom theory, but not in a penal substitutionary form.
But what about you? What sorts of questions do you have about them? Which one do you hold to, and why? Is there a runner-up?
I want to hear what you think!
From what I am researching I think there are a few that cover aspects of atonement that I agree with presently. My thoughts on each are below.
• Moral Influence - I believe Christ's work on the cross does show God's great love, and that it is a motivator, but I do not believe that it is the main factor in convincing man to belief. The inciting work is of the Holy Spirit from which we then can perceive God's love and be morally influenced (respond in love to do actions that are pleasing to the Lord).
• Christus Victor - Jesus Christ has certainly died in order to defeat the powers of sin, death, and the devil.
• Penal Substitution - Jesus' sacrifice satisfies God's justice, without which we would not be able to be reconciled with God.
====
I do not hold to Ransom theory as God is not beholden to Satan, especially as far as justice is concerned, but allows Satan to have certain freedoms that are for God's purposes and ultimately give glory to God. (Not that that's Satan's motivation... xd)
I agree that God is not beholden to Satan. That's not how I understand the ransom theory. If you'd like, I can go into it. But only if you want me to clarify in detail. 3nodding
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2026 11:16 am
Scarlet_Teardrops
Elora Lore
Scarlet_Teardrops
Are you familiar with the various theories on the atonement?
Perhaps you have heard of the penal substitutionary theory of atonement. This is a very popular one, and you are likely to have inherited it. But...
Did you know that there are actually multiple positions? Each have their strengths and weaknesses. Here are some of the major theories:
1. Christus Victor Theory 2. Ransom Theory 3. Satisfaction Theory 4. Penal Substitutionary Theory 5. Moral Influence Theory 6. Governmental Theory 7. Scapegoat Theory
I am partial to the Christus Victor/Ransom/Moral Influence theories. I think a form of Substitutionary theory fits nicely with the Ransom theory, but not in a penal substitutionary form.
But what about you? What sorts of questions do you have about them? Which one do you hold to, and why? Is there a runner-up?
I want to hear what you think!
From what I am researching I think there are a few that cover aspects of atonement that I agree with presently. My thoughts on each are below.
• Moral Influence - I believe Christ's work on the cross does show God's great love, and that it is a motivator, but I do not believe that it is the main factor in convincing man to belief. The inciting work is of the Holy Spirit from which we then can perceive God's love and be morally influenced (respond in love to do actions that are pleasing to the Lord).
• Christus Victor - Jesus Christ has certainly died in order to defeat the powers of sin, death, and the devil.
• Penal Substitution - Jesus' sacrifice satisfies God's justice, without which we would not be able to be reconciled with God.
====
I do not hold to Ransom theory as God is not beholden to Satan, especially as far as justice is concerned, but allows Satan to have certain freedoms that are for God's purposes and ultimately give glory to God. (Not that that's Satan's motivation... xd)
I agree that God is not beholden to Satan. That's not how I understand the ransom theory. If you'd like, I can go into it. But only if you want me to clarify in detail. 3nodding
I would love to know your understanding of it. ^^
Elora Lore
Vice Captain
Bashful Shapeshifter
Offline
Scarlet_Teardrops Captain
Sparkly Genius
Offline
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2026 12:13 pm
Elora Lore
Scarlet_Teardrops
Elora Lore
Scarlet_Teardrops
Are you familiar with the various theories on the atonement?
Perhaps you have heard of the penal substitutionary theory of atonement. This is a very popular one, and you are likely to have inherited it. But...
Did you know that there are actually multiple positions? Each have their strengths and weaknesses. Here are some of the major theories:
1. Christus Victor Theory 2. Ransom Theory 3. Satisfaction Theory 4. Penal Substitutionary Theory 5. Moral Influence Theory 6. Governmental Theory 7. Scapegoat Theory
I am partial to the Christus Victor/Ransom/Moral Influence theories. I think a form of Substitutionary theory fits nicely with the Ransom theory, but not in a penal substitutionary form.
But what about you? What sorts of questions do you have about them? Which one do you hold to, and why? Is there a runner-up?
I want to hear what you think!
From what I am researching I think there are a few that cover aspects of atonement that I agree with presently. My thoughts on each are below.
• Moral Influence - I believe Christ's work on the cross does show God's great love, and that it is a motivator, but I do not believe that it is the main factor in convincing man to belief. The inciting work is of the Holy Spirit from which we then can perceive God's love and be morally influenced (respond in love to do actions that are pleasing to the Lord).
• Christus Victor - Jesus Christ has certainly died in order to defeat the powers of sin, death, and the devil.
• Penal Substitution - Jesus' sacrifice satisfies God's justice, without which we would not be able to be reconciled with God.
====
I do not hold to Ransom theory as God is not beholden to Satan, especially as far as justice is concerned, but allows Satan to have certain freedoms that are for God's purposes and ultimately give glory to God. (Not that that's Satan's motivation... xd)
I agree that God is not beholden to Satan. That's not how I understand the ransom theory. If you'd like, I can go into it. But only if you want me to clarify in detail. 3nodding
I would love to know your understanding of it. ^^
That's very gracious of you. heart
I'm still working this out, so I'm going to be as unconfusing and brief as possible.
So, when I read Scripture, I can see ransom language. Most important for me personally is that it is stated by Jesus in both Matthew (20:28 ) and Mark (10:45). This makes me wonder - well, who is the ransom paid to, or maybe what? I don't think it's paid to the Father, but I also don't see God as owing anything to Satan.
I am willing to say that the ransom is a figure of speech used to describe liberation from slavery to sin and death, but Scripture also states that people have been taken captive by Satan (2 Tim. 2:26). So, the ransom clearly rescues people not just from slavery to sin and death, but slavery to Satan's will. This is not the same thing as paying Satan. He isn't equal to God, and he's not outside of God's sovereignty. So, the cross isn't a bargain, but an act nonetheless involving Satan as an illegitimate captor.
God's sacrifice with His own blood (Acts 20:28 ) sets those captives free - it is an act of spiritual power. I also believe it's a dowry paid by the bridegroom (Jesus) for the bride (the Church).
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2026 5:52 pm
Penal Substitutionary Atonement. I think am closest to a Reformed Baptist, literally every single person I have ever learned from holds to Penal Substitutionary Atonement (as far as I know). It seems pretty plain to me that this is what Scripture is teaching. Here are some short articles with a bit of info on this and some of these other theories from GotQuestions.org, if anyone is interested in checking them out.
I agree with you about the ransom language, and I appreciate you are still working it out internally. I don't think any of us will fully understand until we go to be with Him, but I do think that we can have a foundational understanding of this topic based off scripture.
I'm glad you bring up that God is sovereign and that Satan is not outside of His Sovereignty as we can see also exampled in Job.
But then, if it is the Father who allows Satan to take captives in a spiritual sense, is that not a judgement from the Father on those who He allows to be deceived? Is Satan not in that sense an instrument of God's judgement? (Romans 9) (This is part of the conversation I had with my mom about evil ≠ not good. In that, it is good that God allows evil-- for good and for His glory...but I'm getting off point...)
If God is ultimate judge, then the only one Jesus could pay ransom to, is God. It was God who the Israelites sacrificed to for the pardon of sins (a foreshadow of Jesus' work on the cross,) it is God who made Jesus who had no sin to be sin for us, so in Him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21), and it is God the Father who has given the judging authority to Jesus to judge the world (John 5:22-23). (He could not give that authority if He didn't have it in the first place.)
The fact that Jesus (God) sacrifices Himself to pay the ransom for us to the perfect judge (God) shows His love as well as His just nature that requires payment for sin. heart
Corvis Cross
I also align closest to Reformed Baptist, although there are a few beliefs I don't agree with eschatologically at the present.
Thanks for the links! I think GotQuestions is a really helpful resource. 3nodding
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2026 12:25 pm
Elora Lore
Scarlet_Teardrops
I agree with you about the ransom language, and I appreciate you are still working it out internally. I don't think any of us will fully understand until we go to be with Him, but I do think that we can have a foundational understanding of this topic based off scripture.
I'm glad you bring up that God is sovereign and that Satan is not outside of His Sovereignty as we can see also exampled in Job.
But then, if it is the Father who allows Satan to take captives in a spiritual sense, is that not a judgement from the Father on those who He allows to be deceived? Is Satan not in that sense an instrument of God's judgement? (Romans 9) (This is part of the conversation I had with my mom about evil ≠ not good. In that, it is good that God allows evil-- for good and for His glory...but I'm getting off point...)
If God is ultimate judge, then the only one Jesus could pay ransom to, is God. It was God who the Israelites sacrificed to for the pardon of sins (a foreshadow of Jesus' work on the cross,) it is God who made Jesus who had no sin to be sin for us, so in Him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21), and it is God the Father who has given the judging authority to Jesus to judge the world (John 5:22-23). (He could not give that authority if He didn't have it in the first place.)
The fact that Jesus (God) sacrifices Himself to pay the ransom for us to the perfect judge (God) shows His love as well as His just nature that requires payment for sin. heart
We can have a foundational understanding of the atonement, based on the Scriptures. I agree. 3nodding
I'm going to tread carefully, because I already know that currently I'm the odd one out. You and Corvis are both operating under a Reformed theological lens. That's a legitimate lens, but it is historically and theologically Reformation-specific. I am not operating under that lens. I'm much closer to Eastern Orthodoxy and Patristic language. With that being said...
I respect your synthesis of the ransom theory with your understanding of the atonement - namely, Penal Substitutionary Atonement. That's an excellent theological synthesis. heart
However, I don't believe that the Father was holding anyone for ransom, and I also do not believe that the ransom payment was made to the Father. The Father has given responsibility of judgment to the Son. Even if the Father is considered the ultimate judge, His being the judge does not automatically make Him the de facto recipient of a ransom payment. Historically, ransoms were paid to slave owners, captors, enemies, and prison keepers - not judges.
The language is consistently, as far as I can tell, ransom out of slavery to sin, death, and powers. Sin and death? Slave owners and captors (see Romans 6; 1 Corinthians 15:24-26; Hebrews 2:14-15). I understand these as real powers, not metaphors. And Satan? As I stated earlier, Scripture says he has taken people captive in 2 Timothy 2:26, and it can also be logically deduced from Hebrews 2. That does not mean God owes Satan anything. God is not indebted to Satan in any way.
When it comes to Satan being subject to God and His sovereignty, I need to define my understanding of God's sovereignty, because I suspect we have different definitions of sovereignty as well. So let me just state mine clearly rather than putting words in your mouth: my understanding of God's sovereignty is simply that there is nothing outside of His power, should He choose to exercise it.
Satan taking people captive in the spiritual sense by allowance of God does not automatically mean that God is also passing judgment. And - could you please elaborate on your Romans 9 example? I'm not sure where you are getting Satan as an instrument of God's judgment from that passage. My reading of that passage centers more on God's freedom to show mercy beyond ethnic Israel, and the justice of His purposes in doing so.
Scarlet_Teardrops Captain
Sparkly Genius
Offline
Elora Lore
Vice Captain
Bashful Shapeshifter
Offline
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2026 8:43 am
Scarlet_Teardrops
Elora Lore
Scarlet_Teardrops
I agree with you about the ransom language, and I appreciate you are still working it out internally. I don't think any of us will fully understand until we go to be with Him, but I do think that we can have a foundational understanding of this topic based off scripture.
I'm glad you bring up that God is sovereign and that Satan is not outside of His Sovereignty as we can see also exampled in Job.
But then, if it is the Father who allows Satan to take captives in a spiritual sense, is that not a judgement from the Father on those who He allows to be deceived? Is Satan not in that sense an instrument of God's judgement? (Romans 9) (This is part of the conversation I had with my mom about evil ≠ not good. In that, it is good that God allows evil-- for good and for His glory...but I'm getting off point...)
If God is ultimate judge, then the only one Jesus could pay ransom to, is God. It was God who the Israelites sacrificed to for the pardon of sins (a foreshadow of Jesus' work on the cross,) it is God who made Jesus who had no sin to be sin for us, so in Him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21), and it is God the Father who has given the judging authority to Jesus to judge the world (John 5:22-23). (He could not give that authority if He didn't have it in the first place.)
The fact that Jesus (God) sacrifices Himself to pay the ransom for us to the perfect judge (God) shows His love as well as His just nature that requires payment for sin. heart
We can have a foundational understanding of the atonement, based on the Scriptures. I agree. 3nodding
I'm going to tread carefully, because I already know that currently I'm the odd one out. You and Corvis are both operating under a Reformed theological lens. That's a legitimate lens, but it is historically and theologically Reformation-specific. I am not operating under that lens. I'm much closer to Eastern Orthodoxy and Patristic language. With that being said...
I respect your synthesis of the ransom theory with your understanding of the atonement - namely, Penal Substitutionary Atonement. That's an excellent theological synthesis. heart
However, I don't believe that the Father was holding anyone for ransom, and I also do not believe that the ransom payment was made to the Father. The Father has given responsibility of judgment to the Son. Even if the Father is considered the ultimate judge, His being the judge does not automatically make Him the de facto recipient of a ransom payment. Historically, ransoms were paid to slave owners, captors, enemies, and prison keepers - not judges.
The language is consistently, as far as I can tell, ransom out of slavery to sin, death, and powers. Sin and death? Slave owners and captors (see Romans 6; 1 Corinthians 15:24-26; Hebrews 2:14-15). I understand these as real powers, not metaphors. And Satan? As I stated earlier, Scripture says he has taken people captive in 2 Timothy 2:26, and it can also be logically deduced from Hebrews 2. That does not mean God owes Satan anything. God is not indebted to Satan in any way.
When it comes to Satan being subject to God and His sovereignty, I need to define my understanding of God's sovereignty, because I suspect we have different definitions of sovereignty as well. So let me just state mine clearly rather than putting words in your mouth: my understanding of God's sovereignty is simply that there is nothing outside of His power, should He choose to exercise it.
Satan taking people captive in the spiritual sense by allowance of God does not automatically mean that God is also passing judgment. And - could you please elaborate on your Romans 9 example? I'm not sure where you are getting Satan as an instrument of God's judgment from that passage. My reading of that passage centers more on God's freedom to show mercy beyond ethnic Israel, and the justice of His purposes in doing so.
Ah ok, I think I have a better idea of where you're coming from, but let me know if I misrepresent what you are saying by accident. Also, I apologize that my last response was a bit all over the place, I was trying to type it out before we were expecting company so I was not as clear as I should have been. sweatdrop
First off, let me preface by saying I don't really see myself as operating under a Reformed theological lens. From my own personal reading of scripture, and from what I've read of Reformed theology, I find on many topics in Reformed theology that I have wrestled with do seem to be the most accurate reasoning of scripture thus far. I make the distinction because I am not bound to all of Reformed thinking, a good portion of it just presently matches what I have read and understand about scripture from personal study.
That being said I'd love to learn more about Eastern Orthodoxy and Patristic views in detail at another time. 3nodding
Let me see if I have a decent understanding of what you are saying. It seems like you see the relationship between humanity/sin/Christ's atonement as solely being shown through ransom language. Is that correct?
My impression from your response is that sin/death are powers to which Jesus is paying the ransom to, not the Father, is that also correct?
My last question is if you think that God does choose to exercise his power, and to what degree.
I have a response to your questions and will definitely clarify my earlier post, I just want to make sure I have the best understanding of your view as I can before I respond ro everything. 3nodding
Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2026 7:52 am
Elora Lore
Scarlet_Teardrops
Elora Lore
Scarlet_Teardrops
I agree with you about the ransom language, and I appreciate you are still working it out internally. I don't think any of us will fully understand until we go to be with Him, but I do think that we can have a foundational understanding of this topic based off scripture.
I'm glad you bring up that God is sovereign and that Satan is not outside of His Sovereignty as we can see also exampled in Job.
But then, if it is the Father who allows Satan to take captives in a spiritual sense, is that not a judgement from the Father on those who He allows to be deceived? Is Satan not in that sense an instrument of God's judgement? (Romans 9) (This is part of the conversation I had with my mom about evil ≠ not good. In that, it is good that God allows evil-- for good and for His glory...but I'm getting off point...)
If God is ultimate judge, then the only one Jesus could pay ransom to, is God. It was God who the Israelites sacrificed to for the pardon of sins (a foreshadow of Jesus' work on the cross,) it is God who made Jesus who had no sin to be sin for us, so in Him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21), and it is God the Father who has given the judging authority to Jesus to judge the world (John 5:22-23). (He could not give that authority if He didn't have it in the first place.)
The fact that Jesus (God) sacrifices Himself to pay the ransom for us to the perfect judge (God) shows His love as well as His just nature that requires payment for sin. heart
We can have a foundational understanding of the atonement, based on the Scriptures. I agree. 3nodding
I'm going to tread carefully, because I already know that currently I'm the odd one out. You and Corvis are both operating under a Reformed theological lens. That's a legitimate lens, but it is historically and theologically Reformation-specific. I am not operating under that lens. I'm much closer to Eastern Orthodoxy and Patristic language. With that being said...
I respect your synthesis of the ransom theory with your understanding of the atonement - namely, Penal Substitutionary Atonement. That's an excellent theological synthesis. heart
However, I don't believe that the Father was holding anyone for ransom, and I also do not believe that the ransom payment was made to the Father. The Father has given responsibility of judgment to the Son. Even if the Father is considered the ultimate judge, His being the judge does not automatically make Him the de facto recipient of a ransom payment. Historically, ransoms were paid to slave owners, captors, enemies, and prison keepers - not judges.
The language is consistently, as far as I can tell, ransom out of slavery to sin, death, and powers. Sin and death? Slave owners and captors (see Romans 6; 1 Corinthians 15:24-26; Hebrews 2:14-15). I understand these as real powers, not metaphors. And Satan? As I stated earlier, Scripture says he has taken people captive in 2 Timothy 2:26, and it can also be logically deduced from Hebrews 2. That does not mean God owes Satan anything. God is not indebted to Satan in any way.
When it comes to Satan being subject to God and His sovereignty, I need to define my understanding of God's sovereignty, because I suspect we have different definitions of sovereignty as well. So let me just state mine clearly rather than putting words in your mouth: my understanding of God's sovereignty is simply that there is nothing outside of His power, should He choose to exercise it.
Satan taking people captive in the spiritual sense by allowance of God does not automatically mean that God is also passing judgment. And - could you please elaborate on your Romans 9 example? I'm not sure where you are getting Satan as an instrument of God's judgment from that passage. My reading of that passage centers more on God's freedom to show mercy beyond ethnic Israel, and the justice of His purposes in doing so.
Ah ok, I think I have a better idea of where you're coming from, but let me know if I misrepresent what you are saying by accident. Also, I apologize that my last response was a bit all over the place, I was trying to type it out before we were expecting company so I was not as clear as I should have been. sweatdrop
First off, let me preface by saying I don't really see myself as operating under a Reformed theological lens. From my own personal reading of scripture, and from what I've read of Reformed theology, I find on many topics in Reformed theology that I have wrestled with do seem to be the most accurate reasoning of scripture thus far. I make the distinction because I am not bound to all of Reformed thinking, a good portion of it just presently matches what I have read and understand about scripture from personal study.
That being said I'd love to learn more about Eastern Orthodoxy and Patristic views in detail at another time. 3nodding
Let me see if I have a decent understanding of what you are saying. It seems like you see the relationship between humanity/sin/Christ's atonement as solely being shown through ransom language. Is that correct?
My impression from your response is that sin/death are powers to which Jesus is paying the ransom to, not the Father, is that also correct?
My last question is if you think that God does choose to exercise his power, and to what degree.
I have a response to your questions and will definitely clarify my earlier post, I just want to make sure I have the best understanding of your view as I can before I respond ro everything. 3nodding
You're very gracious. heart
So, I want you to know that I take you at your word when you say you don't see yourself as reading through a Reformation lens. You see yourself as reading Scripture as honestly as possible, and I want to honor that before I continue. We are friends, you and I, and siblings in Christ. That will not change.
What I will say is that none of us actually interprets Scripture objectively. We all bring assumptions, presuppositions, and inherited theological architecture to our Scripture reading. How can we not? Christianity has been around for 2,000 years.
The theory of penal substitutionary atonement is, historically, a Reformation-specific understanding of the atonement. When it comes to church history, it's a much newer understanding of the atonement and it was built from Anselm's substitutionary theory from the 13th century - a theory that wasn't penal - and heavily influenced by the legal world and society of the Protestant reformers. When proponents of PSA argue that PSA language can be found before the Protestant Reformation, they are conflating substitutionary language in the Fathers and Medieval theologians with a specifically penal formulation of substitutionary theory.
I want to be clear that substitution language is in Scripture, but substitution language does not equate to specifically penal substitutionary atonement, which is that God pours out His wrath upon the Son rather than on sinners. I disagree that God needs to pour out His wrath upon anyone to forgive. Justice and wrath are not the same, and I do not personally understand the atonement in the legal courtroom framework that influenced this understanding of the atonement. This is common among Christians outside of Reformation circles.
Jesus' sacrifice is a substitution and echoes back to Levitical sacrificial practices. However, Levitical sacrificial practices were not about God's wrath being poured out upon the animal. This is also true of Jesus.
Regarding ransom theory as the primary formulation - no. I believe that multiple atonement theories converge to help paint a broad and multi-faceted but clearer picture of Jesus' sacrifice. Historically, Christians have understood the atonement this way. Since the conversation has grown beyond my initial post, let me make it clear that my personal understanding of the formulation is Christus Victor + Ransom + Bride Price Payment + Non-Penal Substitution.
Ransom is a liberative process, not a payment to an individual. I can see, based on my previous post, where you got that idea. I have to confess - I was in an FND flare when I wrote that post, so my brain was foggy mush. I'm amazed my post was as coherent as it was.
Anyway, it's a liberative process. This is why I mentioned in an earlier post that it is an act of spiritual power that rescues from captors, namely sin, death, and the Devil. This is also why I stress bride price language be integrated with the ransom theory - the bridegroom is paying the bride price. I think in terms of Jesus purchasing the Church with His blood (Acts 20:28 ), not individuals, which is also very common outside of Reformation and especially Calvinistic circles.
God exercises His power daily and in many facets all the time. I simply reject that He controls everything down to the smallest detail. For example, if a bus full of children veers off the road and falls into a river and all of the children die horrible drowning deaths, I don't believe that God is responsible for that or orchestrated it in any way. God is good, and He will only ever bring good out of evil. He does not foreordain acts of evil. He only foreknows them.
Of course, that would take us into a discussion about the nature of God's omniscience (I lean Molinist).
What is the name for the belief that this world was a trap for Satan that Adam and Eve fell into? And that Satan argues that this world is too hard to not choose sin over obedience? And that we are here to prove Satan wrong that we can choose to love what's righteous over evil.
In Ezekiel 28:11-19 God speaks to Satan, explaining to him why he cast him out.In essence Satan got greedy.
And in Gensis 6:1-4 it states why the angels fell too. In the same way I believe Eve was too tempting to Satan to pass up.
In Corinthians 11:10 Paul states that he urges women to cover their heads during prayer and prophecy out of respect for the angels present during.
(I must admit im completely overwhelmed by all the paragraphs and articles/theories, im not like the man who taught me. He could match you much better on the essay-ish form of writing. I very much respect your effort in doing it, and I humbly admit that it seems very daunting to me.)
Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2026 6:07 pm
Elora Lore
Scarlet_Teardrops
Elora Lore
Scarlet_Teardrops
I agree with you about the ransom language, and I appreciate you are still working it out internally. I don't think any of us will fully understand until we go to be with Him, but I do think that we can have a foundational understanding of this topic based off scripture.
I'm glad you bring up that God is sovereign and that Satan is not outside of His Sovereignty as we can see also exampled in Job.
But then, if it is the Father who allows Satan to take captives in a spiritual sense, is that not a judgement from the Father on those who He allows to be deceived? Is Satan not in that sense an instrument of God's judgement? (Romans 9) (This is part of the conversation I had with my mom about evil ≠ not good. In that, it is good that God allows evil-- for good and for His glory...but I'm getting off point...)
If God is ultimate judge, then the only one Jesus could pay ransom to, is God. It was God who the Israelites sacrificed to for the pardon of sins (a foreshadow of Jesus' work on the cross,) it is God who made Jesus who had no sin to be sin for us, so in Him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21), and it is God the Father who has given the judging authority to Jesus to judge the world (John 5:22-23). (He could not give that authority if He didn't have it in the first place.)
The fact that Jesus (God) sacrifices Himself to pay the ransom for us to the perfect judge (God) shows His love as well as His just nature that requires payment for sin. heart
We can have a foundational understanding of the atonement, based on the Scriptures. I agree. 3nodding
I'm going to tread carefully, because I already know that currently I'm the odd one out. You and Corvis are both operating under a Reformed theological lens. That's a legitimate lens, but it is historically and theologically Reformation-specific. I am not operating under that lens. I'm much closer to Eastern Orthodoxy and Patristic language. With that being said...
I respect your synthesis of the ransom theory with your understanding of the atonement - namely, Penal Substitutionary Atonement. That's an excellent theological synthesis. heart
However, I don't believe that the Father was holding anyone for ransom, and I also do not believe that the ransom payment was made to the Father. The Father has given responsibility of judgment to the Son. Even if the Father is considered the ultimate judge, His being the judge does not automatically make Him the de facto recipient of a ransom payment. Historically, ransoms were paid to slave owners, captors, enemies, and prison keepers - not judges.
The language is consistently, as far as I can tell, ransom out of slavery to sin, death, and powers. Sin and death? Slave owners and captors (see Romans 6; 1 Corinthians 15:24-26; Hebrews 2:14-15). I understand these as real powers, not metaphors. And Satan? As I stated earlier, Scripture says he has taken people captive in 2 Timothy 2:26, and it can also be logically deduced from Hebrews 2. That does not mean God owes Satan anything. God is not indebted to Satan in any way.
When it comes to Satan being subject to God and His sovereignty, I need to define my understanding of God's sovereignty, because I suspect we have different definitions of sovereignty as well. So let me just state mine clearly rather than putting words in your mouth: my understanding of God's sovereignty is simply that there is nothing outside of His power, should He choose to exercise it.
Satan taking people captive in the spiritual sense by allowance of God does not automatically mean that God is also passing judgment. And - could you please elaborate on your Romans 9 example? I'm not sure where you are getting Satan as an instrument of God's judgment from that passage. My reading of that passage centers more on God's freedom to show mercy beyond ethnic Israel, and the justice of His purposes in doing so.
Ah ok, I think I have a better idea of where you're coming from, but let me know if I misrepresent what you are saying by accident. Also, I apologize that my last response was a bit all over the place, I was trying to type it out before we were expecting company so I was not as clear as I should have been. sweatdrop
First off, let me preface by saying I don't really see myself as operating under a Reformed theological lens. From my own personal reading of scripture, and from what I've read of Reformed theology, I find on many topics in Reformed theology that I have wrestled with do seem to be the most accurate reasoning of scripture thus far. I make the distinction because I am not bound to all of Reformed thinking, a good portion of it just presently matches what I have read and understand about scripture from personal study.
That being said I'd love to learn more about Eastern Orthodoxy and Patristic views in detail at another time. 3nodding
Let me see if I have a decent understanding of what you are saying. It seems like you see the relationship between humanity/sin/Christ's atonement as solely being shown through ransom language. Is that correct?
My impression from your response is that sin/death are powers to which Jesus is paying the ransom to, not the Father, is that also correct?
My last question is if you think that God does choose to exercise his power, and to what degree.
I have a response to your questions and will definitely clarify my earlier post, I just want to make sure I have the best understanding of your view as I can before I respond ro everything. 3nodding
if you look into 1 Chronicles 21 and 2 Samuel combined you will see an account where God uses Satan to force David to sin. And when you see who is punished instead of David you will understand why. (Basically David's sin embolden others who were already harboring hatred towards him in their hearts to sin and thus they were punished. In the lament towards Satan in Ezekiel 28:11-19 you will see that it is in God's character to set the wicked up to prove who they are. (Or force them to show it)
You will also see this in the account of Moses Vs Pharoah where God says he will harden Pharoahs heart every time. (Which makes it even more strange that Moses was furious with Pharoah for it)
I also believe (to add to the levitical correlation in Jesus' sacrifice) that when they had the Israelite put their hand on the animal before sacrificing it, that was to transfer the sin/demon onto the animal before delivering it to Sheol via its blood. Which would come back to what I said about Jesus entering Sheol via his blood. With the sin of the world taken, and through our belief in him we give him our sin/demons. And as high priest and sacrificed for good, faith is our act of atonement.
However, there is also scriptural evidence that when Jesus reigns on earth for a thousand years there will be animal sacrifices once again. Which Paul had taken part in after the resurrection and after he was called by Jesus into service.
Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2026 10:29 am
Servant Of Yashua
What is the name for the belief that this world was a trap for Satan that Adam and Eve fell into? And that Satan argues that this world is too hard to not choose sin over obedience? And that we are here to prove Satan wrong that we can choose to love what's righteous over evil.
In Ezekiel 28:11-19 God speaks to Satan, explaining to him why he cast him out.In essence Satan got greedy.
And in Gensis 6:1-4 it states why the angels fell too. In the same way I believe Eve was too tempting to Satan to pass up.
In Corinthians 11:10 Paul states that he urges women to cover their heads during prayer and prophecy out of respect for the angels present during.
(I must admit im completely overwhelmed by all the paragraphs and articles/theories, im not like the man who taught me. He could match you much better on the essay-ish form of writing. I very much respect your effort in doing it, and I humbly admit that it seems very daunting to me.)
I'm sorry you feel overwhelmed. But don't sweat it - you are more than welcome in this conversation.
So, I'm not familiar with the specifics of the idea you mention here about Earth and humanity being essentially a test to prove Satan wrong. That concept echoes a theme in Job, but it's not a formal concept in Christianity, as far as I can tell. But no one's knowledge is comprehensive. 3nodding
It's an interesting idea, at least.
I don't interpret Ezekiel 28:11-19 as being about Satan - it's only about the king of Tyre. So for me, that Scripture is off the table when it comes to discussions about Satan. Same with Isaiah 14 and the king of Babylon.
I'm not sure that 1 Corinthians 11:10 connects with Satan. I also believe that, in the context of the rest of 1 Corinthians 11, it becomes clear that Paul is speaking from a cultural understanding about cultural customs/practices.
Servant of Yashua
if you look into 1 Chronicles 21 and 2 Samuel combined you will see an account where God uses Satan to force David to sin. And when you see who is punished instead of David you will understand why. (Basically David's sin embolden others who were already harboring hatred towards him in their hearts to sin and thus they were punished. In the lament towards Satan in Ezekiel 28:11-19 you will see that it is in God's character to set the wicked up to prove who they are. (Or force them to show it)
You will also see this in the account of Moses Vs Pharoah where God says he will harden Pharoahs heart every time. (Which makes it even more strange that Moses was furious with Pharoah for it)
I see the discrepancy between 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 as theological development. 2 Samuel was probably written before 1 Chronicles was written, and the authors had different goals in mind. This is very clear with how the Chronicles interpret and understand Israel's history and the actions of its peoples and leaders. You harmonize the passages, and that is totally fine. But that's not how I read them.
God hardened pharaoh's heart, but pharaoh also hardened his heart. The passages in Exodus reflect a kind of interplay between pharaoh's response to God and then God's response to pharaoh. Early on, the text is ambiguous about who hardened the pharaoh's heart, because it does not actually articulate who is doing the hardening until later passages. Then, in some later passages, it says pharaoh hardened his heart. It is only starting in Exodus 9 that the text begins explicitly saying that God hardened pharaoh's heart.
This suggests the text is less about God essentially forcing pharaoh to sin and more into God hardening obstinance and resistance that is already present. You can interpret the ambiguous passages as God doing it, but the text does not explicitly state that it is God doing any hardening until later, after the text explicitly states that pharaoh hardened his own heart.
Servant of Yashua
I also believe (to add to the levitical correlation in Jesus' sacrifice) that when they had the Israelite put their hand on the animal before sacrificing it, that was to transfer the sin/demon onto the animal before delivering it to Sheol via its blood. Which would come back to what I said about Jesus entering Sheol via his blood. With the sin of the world taken, and through our belief in him we give him our sin/demons. And as high priest and sacrificed for good, faith is our act of atonement.
However, there is also scriptural evidence that when Jesus reigns on earth for a thousand years there will be animal sacrifices once again. Which Paul had taken part in after the resurrection and after he was called by Jesus into service.
I do not understand Jesus' reign as being a literal thousand years on Earth. His reign is already happening. One day, He will return, but it will not be to reign for a literal thousand years. It will be to bring heaven to Earth and restore Earth as God's cosmic temple, which we see in the early Genesis passages with the Garden of Eden. That is when the resurrection of the dead will also take place.
Your interpretation of the animal being sent to Sheol and the connection between blood and Sheol is interesting. I'm not terribly familiar with that understanding. Care to elaborate? ^_^
What is the name for the belief that this world was a trap for Satan that Adam and Eve fell into? And that Satan argues that this world is too hard to not choose sin over obedience? And that we are here to prove Satan wrong that we can choose to love what's righteous over evil.
In Ezekiel 28:11-19 God speaks to Satan, explaining to him why he cast him out.In essence Satan got greedy.
And in Gensis 6:1-4 it states why the angels fell too. In the same way I believe Eve was too tempting to Satan to pass up.
In Corinthians 11:10 Paul states that he urges women to cover their heads during prayer and prophecy out of respect for the angels present during.
(I must admit im completely overwhelmed by all the paragraphs and articles/theories, im not like the man who taught me. He could match you much better on the essay-ish form of writing. I very much respect your effort in doing it, and I humbly admit that it seems very daunting to me.)
I'm sorry you feel overwhelmed. But don't sweat it - you are more than welcome in this conversation.
So, I'm not familiar with the specifics of the idea you mention here about Earth and humanity being essentially a test to prove Satan wrong. That concept echoes a theme in Job, but it's not a formal concept in Christianity, as far as I can tell. But no one's knowledge is comprehensive. 3nodding
It's an interesting idea, at least.
I don't interpret Ezekiel 28:11-19 as being about Satan - it's only about the king of Tyre. So for me, that Scripture is off the table when it comes to discussions about Satan. Same with Isaiah 14 and the king of Babylon.
I'm not sure that 1 Corinthians 11:10 connects with Satan. I also believe that, in the context of the rest of 1 Corinthians 11, it becomes clear that Paul is speaking from a cultural understanding about cultural customs/practices.
Servant of Yashua
if you look into 1 Chronicles 21 and 2 Samuel combined you will see an account where God uses Satan to force David to sin. And when you see who is punished instead of David you will understand why. (Basically David's sin embolden others who were already harboring hatred towards him in their hearts to sin and thus they were punished. In the lament towards Satan in Ezekiel 28:11-19 you will see that it is in God's character to set the wicked up to prove who they are. (Or force them to show it)
You will also see this in the account of Moses Vs Pharoah where God says he will harden Pharoahs heart every time. (Which makes it even more strange that Moses was furious with Pharoah for it)
I see the discrepancy between 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 as theological development. 2 Samuel was probably written before 1 Chronicles was written, and the authors had different goals in mind. This is very clear with how the Chronicles interpret and understand Israel's history and the actions of its peoples and leaders. You harmonize the passages, and that is totally fine. But that's not how I read them.
God hardened pharaoh's heart, but pharaoh also hardened his heart. The passages in Exodus reflect a kind of interplay between pharaoh's response to God and then God's response to pharaoh. Early on, the text is ambiguous about who hardened the pharaoh's heart, because it does not actually articulate who is doing the hardening until later passages. Then, in some later passages, it says pharaoh hardened his heart. It is only starting in Exodus 9 that the text begins explicitly saying that God hardened pharaoh's heart.
This suggests the text is less about God essentially forcing pharaoh to sin and more into God hardening obstinance and resistance that is already present. You can interpret the ambiguous passages as God doing it, but the text does not explicitly state that it is God doing any hardening until later, after the text explicitly states that pharaoh hardened his own heart.
Servant of Yashua
I also believe (to add to the levitical correlation in Jesus' sacrifice) that when they had the Israelite put their hand on the animal before sacrificing it, that was to transfer the sin/demon onto the animal before delivering it to Sheol via its blood. Which would come back to what I said about Jesus entering Sheol via his blood. With the sin of the world taken, and through our belief in him we give him our sin/demons. And as high priest and sacrificed for good, faith is our act of atonement.
However, there is also scriptural evidence that when Jesus reigns on earth for a thousand years there will be animal sacrifices once again. Which Paul had taken part in after the resurrection and after he was called by Jesus into service.
I do not understand Jesus' reign as being a literal thousand years on Earth. His reign is already happening. One day, He will return, but it will not be to reign for a literal thousand years. It will be to bring heaven to Earth and restore Earth as God's cosmic temple, which we see in the early Genesis passages with the Garden of Eden. That is when the resurrection of the dead will also take place.
Your interpretation of the animal being sent to Sheol and the connection between blood and Sheol is interesting. I'm not terribly familiar with that understanding. Care to elaborate? ^_^
Then you don't believe in demonic possession? In that Lament he clearly speaks to a cherubim angel. In the first chapter of Ezekiel they are described. If this is not enough to convince you then we can leave it off the table and see if we are able to agree on any other point.
Reply
