Below is transcribed from The Present Truth Forum October 2, 2001
Dear friends, and other interested ones,
Peace to you in the name of our Ransom Redeemer.
Many of you have seen the recent visits by those touting "universalism" on this forum. Some may have grown tired of their continual repetition of the same single note. Others have grown weary of some rather rude remarks toward Bible students and bro. Russell. Because of this, it is very understandable that some would not notice or perhaps ignored completely one of these "universalists" subtle attack upon the Ransom. This is an answer to that attack, providing some background as to why this individual is here, consciously or not.
Why is Tony N. here? Why is he so virulently anti-Russell, and anti-Bible student, especially when he holds similar views in some areas, and is a guest on this forum? Why the continual harping on the one single note "universalism"? Enough clues have been left behind by these guests to detail an outline of the cause of this phenomenon.
I could spend time in critiquing the bad form used by our universalist friends, that of copying and pasting long winded answers given to people who are not on this forum, and who hold to completely different views from the majority of us here. I could point out the obvious, that it is neither effective nor polite to place over 30 links in a single post in an effort to answer a short paragraph or two previously posted by one of us. However, I will go to the heart of the matter, and in so doing, I mean no harm to the universalists, but only wish to reveal their true beliefs and background, and in so doing, hopefully will convince at least some of them of the folly of their position.
The heart of the matter as to why the continual rudeness and attacks upon us and our Pastor is this: In the course of posting here it was revealed by Tony N. that he is "carrying on the ecclesia" of one J.H. Paton. He said that he personally knows J.H. Paton's granddaughter, and that he "has some things which he published many years ago."
For those unfamiliar with the name, J.H. Paton was a former associate of C.T. Russell. He is noted for having had fellowship with bro. Russell during the time when he was beginning the Watchtower, and for having published a book by Paton called "Day Dawn." Originally bro. Russell not only advertised "Day Dawn" in his own publication, but he paid for the making of it out of his own pocket. This lasted only until J.H. Paton changed his views about the Ransom, and began to publish the denial of this most important doctrine of all. J.H. Paton is perhaps known to some from bro. Russell's article "Harvest Gatherings and Siftings", as one of the chief sifters from the time period of 1881 to 1884.
J.H. Paton's denial of the Ransom was confronted by bro. Russell in the early Towers. He asked the publisher of "Day Dawn" to answer some simple questions regarding why Jesus had to die, some of which I recreated verbatum here on this message forum. At the time J.H. Paton declined to give an answer, leaving Tower readers with obvious evidence of moral cowardice. However, I will give Tony N. a bit more credit than that, for while his two companions in the universalist camp here on this forum both have not answered, he at least did answer. Unfortunately, what is revealed in some of the answers he gave are further clues as to his connection with the teaching of J.H. Paton and his denial of the Ransom.
To his credit, I will say from some of the answers that Tony N. has not given a complete denial of the Ransom, but a partial one.
In the index of the early Towers, J.H. Paton elicits the following references:
*erroneous views on the Ransom 482
*Rejected Tabernacle teachings 3825:3-6
(The last reference is to the article "Harvest Gatherings and Siftings.")
In the index of P.S.L. Johnson's Epiphany volumes, the references are cited as follows:
*one of the false shepherds - Zech 11:8
*renounced Ransom I371
*Sifting leader F173
*See: leaders, sifting, shepherds, false F260
Here is a part of what bro. Russell had to say about him:
STILL FURTHER SIFTINGS
In the end, I alone was at any financial loss in connection
with the book, Day Dawn, the writer and the publisher both
being gainers financially, while I did all the introducing by
repeated advertisements. We need to give these particulars
because of certain misrepresentations and one-sided and partial
statements of acts which were afterward published and
circulated in tract form by Mr. Paton, who also became later
an advocate of the "other Gospel," of which the Cross of
Christ is not the center, and which denies that He "bought us
with His own precious blood." (Galatians 1:6-9.) Mr. Paton
afterward published another book, which though called by
the same name as the one I introduced, was on another and
false foundation, which I could not and did not recommend,
but which I esteemed misleading sophistry, tending to undermine
the whole structure of the Christian system, yet retaining
a sufficiency of the truths which we once held in common to
make it palatable and dangerous to all not rooted and
grounded upon the Ransom Rock.
The false foundation which this later Day Dawn presented
is the old heathen doctrine of Evolution, renamed, which not
only denies the fall of man, but, as a consequence, all necessity
of a redeemer. It claimed on the contrary, that not by
Redemption and Restitution to a lost estate, but by progressive
evolution, or development, man has risen and is still to
rise from the lower condition in which he was created until,
by his own good works, he ultimately reaches the Divine nature.
Mr. Paton claimed that our blessed Lord Himself was
a degraded and imperfect man, whose work on earth was to
crucify a carnal nature (which it was claimed He possessed),
and to thus show all men how to crucify their carnal or sinful
propensities.
The reader at this point is referred to R639, entitled "Those Six Questions". They are
the identical questions I originally posted to the universalists. And while Tony N. did answer in a Scriptural manner that shows a growth in maturity of thought over the past 120 years, note the uncanny similarities between some of his answers to the questions, and bro. Russells treatment of the same way back then.
Note in the immediate response below the subtle denial of the efficacy of Christ's atoning work on the cross, which in reality is a repudiation of the doctrine of justification by faith. In his answer he claims that Christ did not put away sin - yet. If this is so, then we are not justified in any sense through our faith in him.
Regan wrote:
(3) How did he put
away sin by the sacrifice of himself?
Tony's reply:
Heb 9:26 in the KJV: "For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself"
Heb 9:26 in the CLNT: "since then He must often be suffering from the disruption of the world, yet now, once, at the conclusion of the eons, for the repudiation of sin through His sacrifice, is He manifest."
Since the Concordant Literal New Testament is more accurate I will go by it. It is not in the past tense "How did He put away sin" but is "how is sin repudiated at the conclusion of the eons through His sacrifice." He will do it through His sacrifice. The verse answers itself.
Bro. Russell on the original answer to the same question:
Their answer:--By his example and teaching he taught men to
put away sin for themselves, and thus, in a sense, it might be
said that he put the sin away.
We object, that Moses and the prophets had taught men to
abstain from sin; hence, if Jesus put away sin only by precept
and example, he did no more than others. And, if it is true, that
"In him was no sin," how could he be an example of how to put
away what he did not have? But note, the question is a quotation
from Paul (Heb. 9:26), and it reads that he put away sin, not by
precept and example of his life, but "by the sacrifice of himself."
Read the connections, and try to view the matter from the
Apostle's inspired standpoint, and unless you think, as one of
these contemporaries does, that Paul often made mistakes and
misquotations, you should be convinced of his meaning when
penning these words.
Remember, too, that when Moses, as a type of Jesus, taught men
to abstain from sin, he, too, did more--he typically made a sin
offering--a sacrifice for sin. And the antitype not only taught
purity, but did more--made himself a sacrifice for sin--the true
sacrifice. "The Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the
world."
Regan wrote:
(4) In what way did he give "himself a
ransom (Greek, antilutron--an equivalent price) for all?"
Tony's reply:
I guess you are referencing 1Tim.2:4-6 concentrating on verse 6 as to why God will have all mankind to be saved, for...Christ gave Himself a ransom for all (mankind).
He have Himself a ransom for all in dying for all mankind. In My Greek text I have "AntiLutron Instead-Loosener" so the idea of the word has the idea of loosening mankind from their sins.
So to directly answer your question...In what way did He give Himself a ransom for all? By dying on the cross.
Bro. Russell on the original answer given to the same question:
To this question they can give no answer except by denying the
meaning of the word, which any one may see by reference to
Young's Concordance. The significance of the original is very
pointed. Jesus not only gave a price for the ransom of the
Adamic race, but Paul says he gave an equivalent price. A
perfect man had sinned and forfeited all right to life: Jesus,
another perfect man, bought back those forfeited rights by
giving his unforfeited human existence a ransom--an equivalent
price. Read now Paul's argument (Rom. 5:18,19): "Therefore, as
by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to
condemnation; even so, by the righteousness of one, the free gift
came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's
disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of
one shall many be made righteous."
Regan wrote:
(5) In what way
was he a "propitiation (satisfaction) for our sins?"
Tony's reply:
I suppose you are asking concerning 1Jn.2:2 "2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."
It is saying that He covered our sins and He covered the sins of the whole world also. In what way? In His death for all mankind. Propitiation does not mean (satisfaction) but it means "covering" or "shelter".
Bro. Russell on the original answer given to the same question: [see R639]
This is another question which they cannot answer. They would
like to declare that he was not a satisfaction in this sense, or not
a satisfaction in that sense, or not a satisfaction in some other
sense; but the question, In what sense was he a "satisfaction for
our sins?" they cannot answer.
We answer, that this text is in perfect harmony with all
Scripture. The Law of life (obedience) was broken by Adam,
and both he and his posterity were condemned as unfit for life.
Jesus became our ransom by paying our death penalty, and thus
justifying us to life, which in due time comes to all, to be again
either accepted or rejected. Yes, we are glad that the claims of
the Law upon our race were fully satisfied by our Redeemer.
Regan wrote:
(6) In what sense were
we "bought with a price?"
Tony's reply:
Let us, in view of God's own law as to the ransom, dismiss from our minds all thought of commercialism and bargaining. God is not seeking to make a fortune, like a robber, by holding up His creatures and demanding the payment of an enormous ransom. The ransom price of a man of wealth may reach up into the thousands or even millions, yet God's law calls for a mere pittance. And He does not even insist on this in case of poverty. Let us acknowledge that God is not driving a bargain; He does not even demand an equivalent.
The fact that we are redeemed and ransomed does not deny the truth that we have been "{bought} with a price" (1 Cor.6:20; 7:23). The word here used denotes the payment of an equivalent, as when the man buys the field for the treasure hid in it (Matt.13:44). But the effect of a ransom is just the opposite of being bought. A person who is ransomed is set free: one who is bought is enslaved. We are Christ's freemen: we are the lord's slaves. One aspect of truth is concerned with God's work for us: the other is connected with our service for Him. "Ye are not your own, for ye are bought with a price," does not refer to our position in Christ as the result of a ransom or redemption, but our obligations to Him in service. In one case it is followed by the exhortation "therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit...," and in the other by the warning "do not become the slaves of men" (1 Cor. 7:23). So, too, Peter associates it with the Ownership of Christ (2 Peter 2:1).
Bro. Russell on the original answer given to the same question: [R639]
Their answer: Bought is not a good word; it conveys too much
of the "commercial idea"; they would say, rather, ye were taken,
etc.
We object; by such false reasonings the Word of God would be
robbed of all its meaning. Words are useless unless they carry
some idea. What other meaning is there in the word "bought"
than the "commercial idea"? It has no other meaning or idea to
it. But Paul was a lawyer, and his teachings, more than any other
Apostles', are hard to twist; and in this instance he guards well
his statement, by saying, not only that we were "bought," but he
says it was with "a price;" and then, lest some one should claim
that the price was the ministry and teachings of Jesus, Peter is
caused to guard it by adding--"With the precious blood of
Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot." (1 Cor.
6:20; 1 Pet. 1:19).
In conclusion, let us say in a few words, what they do think of
the value and preciousness of the death of Christ. They believe
and have privately expressed, and it is the covered import of
their public teachings, which they do not yet wish to state
boldly--not until they get false premises and conclusions
engrafted first, as a basis on which to place it,--that Jesus' death
no more paid your ransom price than did Paul's or than my death
would; nay, put it stronger, that his death was of no value in
redeeming us.
As before pointed out, this denial of the ransom we believe to be
the great rock upon which the nominal Church is even to-day
being dashed.
The doctrine of the substitution of Jesus, in settlement of the
sinner's guilt and punishment, is being scoffed at among the
"great preachers"; and the doctrine, so plainly taught by the
apostles, that the death of Jesus was the price of our release from
death, is falling into discredit and disrepute among the "worldly
great," and hence also among some who would like to be of that
class.
It is my hope that this will serve as a reminder to the brethren of the preciousness of the Ransom, the subtle ways in which it can be attacked and denied, and also with hopes that those who are bound in the universalist error can be educated as to the pernicious nature of their teaching. In "universalism" what appears to be benign is in reality a malignancy. May the Lord guide and direct and protect us as we seek to serve Him only.
Yours in Truth,
Bro. Regan Balman
Lutron Anti and Antilutron
The word "ransom" appears in our English New Testament 3 times: Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45, 1 Timothy
2:6. But the Greek in each case is not the same. In Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45, the word rendered "ransom"
is lutron, followed with the word anti. But in Timothy the Greek is one word, antilutron. Why this difference?
There is a slightly different thought in each place. The basic word lutron means "lit., a means of loosing
(from luo, to loose), occurs frequently in the Septuagint, where it is always used to signify equivalence. Thus it
is used of the ransom for a life, e.g. Ex. 21:30, of the redemption price of a slave, e.g. Lev. 19:20, of land,
25:24, or the price of a captive, Isa. 45:13." (Vine, Expository Dictionary)
The derivation of the word is helpful. "Lu" is from Luo, as Vine comments, meaning "to loose." Tron is not a
word of itself, but its meaning in other words is exemplified in some English words using that Greek suffix, like
"electron," and "positron." An electron is that (particle) which has an electric charge, a positron that (particle)
which has a positive charge. Lu-tron therefore is "that which looses"- the basis of loosing, the price of release.
Anti can appear either compounded in a word, or as a word by itself. "The basic idea of anti is 'facing.' This
may be a matter of opposition, unfriendliness or antagonism, or of agreement.... antiparerchomai in Luke 10:31,
32, where the verb is rendered 'passed by on the other side,' i e., of the road, but facing the wounded man;
antiballo in Luke 24:17, where the anti suggests that the two disciples, in exchanging words (see R.V. marg.),
turned to face one another, indicating the earnest nature of their conversation. The idea of antagonism is seen in
antidikos, an adversary, Matt.5:25, antichristos, antichrist, 1 John 4:3, etc.
"There is no instance of the uncompounded preposition signifying 'against.' ... the idea is that of 'in the place
of,' 'instead of,' or of exchange...."
Examples listed by Vine ("for" = anti):
"an eye for an eye" (Matthew 5:38)
"evil for evil" (Romans 12:17, 1 Thess. 5:15, 1 Peter 3:9)
"railing for railing" (1 Peter 3:9)
"for a fish ... a serpent" (Luke 11:11)
"for one mess of meat . . . his own birthright" (Heb.12:16)
"a shekel ... for thee and Me" (Matt. 17:27) ("That is to say, the exchange is that of the coin for the tax
demanded from Christ and Peter, rather than for the persons themselves.")
"for a covering" (1 Cor. 11:15) ("Where the hair is a substitute for the covering.")
"The substitutionary meaning is exemplified in Jas.4:15, where the A.V. and R.V. render the anti 'for that'(R.V.,
mar"., 'instead of)."
("In Heb. 12:2, 'for (anti) the joy that was set before Him endured the cross,' neither the thought of exchange nor
that of substitution is conveyed; here the basic idea of facing is present. The cross and the joy faced each other
in the mind of Christ and He chose the one with the other in view.")
So our Lord states that his human life was to be given a lutron, "price of release," anti, "in the place of, or
instead of," many.
Paul's expression in 1 Timothy 2:6 is different. The word for "ransom" is not lutron, but antilutron, and his
word for "for" is not anti, but huper. Antilutron means a "corresponding price of release," or as Vine puts it, "a
substitutionary ransom ... there the preposition is huper, on behalf of...."
To summarize:
Matthew 20: 28.........Ransom...............................For many
Mark 10: 45...............Lutron................................Anti
.................................Price of release...................In the place of, Or instead of, Or in exchange for
1 Timothy 2: 6..........Ransom................................For all
...............................antilutron.............................Huper
................................corresponding price of..........On behalf of
................................release or
................................substitutionary ransom |
