can we loose salvation ......

[Danny Hurley]

Bob points to the "inconvenient details" in the Words of Christ found in Matt 18.



The ball is in Dan's court to address the Words of Christ found in Matt 18 and more specifically to address the "inconvenient details of Matt 18" so willingly "glossed over" by those who are not pleased to find Christ's words in Matt 18



Did you not read Matt 18 at all??? Your response is a "gloss over" at a level I do not think I have seen before in any exegetical review of scripture - surely not in the case of Matt 18.

May I suggest that you embrace "sola scriptura" for "real"?

in Christ,

Bob

Sorry Bob i don't know what a gloss over means, neither do i know what exegetical reveiw means and i don't even know what exegetical means. But i think i understand what Jesus means when he said verse 15. Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16. but if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17. and if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and publican. 18. Verily i say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

 

[DHK]

HP:
A simple question:
Do you believe the truths taught in John 3:16?

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

This is not universalism. I don't know how you define universalism. But you must have a misconception of it, for I certainly don't believe in it. Perhaps you need to do more study on what universalism really is, before falsely accusing others of believing it.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: A simple question:
Do you believe the truths taught in John 3:16?

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

HP: Absolutely I believe that verse is true, but I do not believe the way you look at is correct. I do not believe that it in any way establishes the false notion of a literal payment of sin on the cross.

DHK: This is not universalism. I don't know how you define universalism. But you must have a misconception of it, for I certainly don't believe in it. Perhaps you need to do more study on what universalism really is, before falsely accusing others of believing it.

HP: I have no misconception of universalism and its beliefs any more than I have a misunderstanding of the false ideas of the literal payment theory. Why do you falsely accuse me of falsely accusing you? If you would be careful in reading my post ,I did NOT say that believe in universalism, but rather state emphatically that neither of us do. I am simply trying to point out the glaring inconsistency in not being a universalist, denying a limited atonement, yet holding to a literal payment theory as you obviously do. It of necessity induces the notion that one can indeed lose ones forgiveness or lose ones standing of having our sins atoned for on the cross among other notions as well.

Why don’t we continue this topic on the other thread I started entitled ‘The Baptist Notion of Payment Revoked’, so as not to be accused of derailing this thread? :thumbs:

 

[BobRyan]

DHK

DHK
"Forgiveness Revoked" is an obscure doctrine taught by some sects. But it is found nowhere in the Bible. It is contrived only by drawing it out of a parable. But parables don't teach doctrine. They illustrate doctrine that has already been previously taught. NO new doctrine is ever taught in a parable--never. Thus we know from this fact alone that "forgiveness revoked" is a false doctrine. It comes from a twisting of the Scriptures drawn from a parable and taught no where else in Scripture.
That is not good hermeneutics.

It is not rightly dividing the Word of Truth. This is my quote. And I stand by it as absolute truth.
You may present Scriptures, as many do...

It seems we are in agreement on at least "one point" -- and that is that you are happy to make such statements and I am more than happy to quote scripture.

And so -- again -- I say we leave it to the unbiased obective reader to see what you have said and contrast that to the scripture as quoted here

Matt 18
21 Then Peter came and said to Him, ""Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?''
22 Jesus said to him, ""I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.

23 ""For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared[/b] to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves.
24 ""When he had begun to settle them, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him.
25 ""But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made.
26 ""So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, "Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.'
27 ""And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt.
28 ""But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, "Pay back what you owe.'

29 ""So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to plead with him, saying, "Have patience with me and I will repay you.'
30 ""But he was unwilling and went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed.
31 ""So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened.
32 ""Then summoning him, his lord said to him, "You wicked slave,I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.
33 " Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?'
34 ""And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.

35 "" My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.''

And again - let's appeal to the unbiased objective reader - the serious Bible student to read the Words of Christ and contrast that to the words given by DHK to SEE which one they will accept.--


DHK - I would think you would be pleased for readers to see your posts and contrast them to scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

From post 165 -

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny Hurley
In Matthew 18 Jesus was teaching us to forgive one anothers trespasses not wilful sins such as adultry, lying, stealing, etc. We nor the Church can forgive wilful sins such as these, thats why he summed it up that if a man was stubborn and would not hear the offended alone, and then with witnesses, nor the Church the he manifested he has not been born again. And would be cast out. We can and should forgive each other for offending us, but we cannot forgive wilful sins. Thats why there is a sin unto death and a sin not unto death.

Bob responds
1. There is no mention at all of "not having been born again" in this chapter -- at least not from Christ.

2. The ENTIRE POINT of the illustration is NOT of the form "well wicked slave - I did not REALLY forgive you to start with so you had no basis at all to forgive your fellow servant - you were merely doing to others what I had already done to you by NOT really forgiving you in the first place."

Such an argument inserted eisegetically into the text would destroy the entire sense of the text. It simply can not be done and preserve exegesis.

3. The entire argument is made based on "I REALLY DID forgive you so now you have no excuse at all for not forgiving others who sin against you JUST AS I forgave you".

The argument in the text is not that the one who sins against us "owes" the massive "salvation debt" that WE owe the King of the universe when we sin -- NOR is the argument that the tiny debts incurred between servants is on the same massive insurmountable level as the debt FORGIVEN by the King for that servant.

Danny H responds
Sorry to cross your mind but i have no fellowship with manifested heathen and pubilcans.

By the way just exactly what is it that thats bound in heaven, because of what was bound on earth?

Correction - my comments are in reference to Matt 18:21-35 --- Danny Hurley appears to be confining his remarks to earlier segments of Matt 18 without regard to the closing illustration and remarks Christ gives in that chapter -- and therefore outside of the scope of my remarks on vs 21-35.

Please continue that discussion - I remain for the moment on the facts regarding Christ's words in vs 21-35.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Sorry Bob i don't know what a gloss over means, neither do i know what exegetical reveiw means and i don't even know what exegetical means. But i think i understand what Jesus means when he said verse 15. .

That is all fine - my remarks are for the moment focused on vs 21-35 as Christ stated them.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

DHK: When one comes to Christ, he does so on the basis of the shed blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, knowing that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. He comes receiving Christ as Saviour by grace through faith. You have denied this very essential truth.

HP: Speaking of false accusations and in your words to BR “unethical and deceitful” I would say that four out of the five fingers you are pointing are directing my attention to your own comments.

Here you speak as one attempting to take the high ground in a debate, as if though all that would disagree with your underlying approach to these notions the opponent is of necessity making false accusations and being “unethical and deceitful.” That is quite an accusation DHK.

1.
The truth of the matter is that BR, as I understand him, you, as well as myself all can make the statement you make above and be in agreement to it.

2
The problem lies NOT in your statement above, but whether or not one views the atonement from a literal payment theory perspective or not. You beg the real important questions of any debate we have ever had on the issue concerning salvation. You ASSUME WITHOUT PROOF that a literal payment was made, as in opposition to a substitutionary atonement.

3
Instead of the personal attacks, why not show to us via Scripture that a literal payment was indeed made? ...

I have taken the liberty of numbering the segments of HP's response as they are well thoughtout objective statements and not simply ad hominem comments expressing simple emotion while ignoring details.

Regarding HP's point 1 - he is exactly right.

When DHK makes the statement "When one comes to Christ, he does so on the basis of the shed blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, knowing that Christ paid the penalty for our sins." -- he states little more more than what every poster on this board would affirm - especially me.

HP's second point is "in more depth". It deals with the issue of "literal payment for sin" possibly in two areas -- 1. Literal debt (suffering the 2nd death owed by each sinner) quantified - summed up and that sum as demanded by the moral law - paid by Christ on the cross.

2. That payment applied to the individual in the fullest sense of "Atonement" that God HIMSELF defines in Lev 16.

On the first point of Christ literally suffering for the real and literal debt owed by each person -- I suspect that DHK and I agree on that point even more than DHK and HP.

As to the fact that we differ on the second part (the issue of Atonement in Lev 16 which shows that BOTH the atoning sacrifice AND the work of the High Priest must be included in the complete scope of the Atonement solution) DHK and I differ. IN that difference - my view ALLOWS Matt 18 to "be true" - but it places DHK in the position of having to fight both the illusration of forgiveness revoked that Christ gives in Matt 18 but ALSO the SUMMATION that Christ gives as to the spiritual signifcance of the illustration HE provides for us.

Hence the ad hominem solution DHK is trying out - in an effort to sidestep the problem of the text with his prior bias - which get's us to the part of HP's response above that I have labled "3".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

When DHK makes the statement "When one comes to Christ, he does so on the basis of the shed blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, knowing that Christ paid the penalty for our sins." -- he states little more more than what every poster on this board would affirm - especially me.

And that statement, in and of itself, should be enough. But if you want some preaching I will oblige you.
My statement "literally" says "paid the penalty." It means he paid the debt. In John 19:30, as Christ hung on the cross he cried out: "It is finished!" The work of salvation was finished. The debt was paid--both literally and substitutionarily. It was a literal debt. He paid the debt for OUR sins--the lost and the saved, the redeemed and the unredeemed, the ages past and the ages to come; in short the sins of mankind or the sins of the world. Christ died for us (the world)--Romans 5:8.

The price that he paid was literally his own blood. It was his blood that satisfied God the Father. It was His blood that made an atonement for our sins. It was His blood that made a legal satisfaction, a propitiation for our sins. It paid the penalty that we could never pay. We committed a crime through sin. A penalty had to be paid because of our crime. The penalty was death (eternal separation from God for all eternity), a penalty that we could not pay. Therefore, Christ being both God and man, came and paid that penalty for us, by shedding His own blood on the cross. That was a literal payment.

It was a substitutionary payment.
The blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin.
All the blood that was spilt in the OT sacrifices only looked forward to the one sacrifice to come--the sacrifice of Christ. He was the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. His blood was shed on our behalf. He became our substitue in that he took our place. I deserved to be on that cross suffering for my sin; but he took my place and suffered for me, but not for me only but for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Once anyone or any organization adds anything to the sacrifice of Christ, they take away from his atoning work.
Salvation is by grace through faith; not of works.

It is not by grace through faith plus baptism
or plus confirmation,
or plus church membership
or plus keeping the Ten Commandments
or plus anything.

Salvation is by faith and by faith alone.
Once works (of anykind) is added, then grace is no more grace, and the atonement is no longer sufficient enough to pay for our sins. It becomes an insult to Christ. If, for example, baptism is made a requirement for salvation, it takes away from the payment that Christ made, and gives part of that payment to man, who then is able to "boast" that he paid part of the penalty of sins along with the sacrifice of Christ. That is blasphemy. For Christ paid the penalty in all. Thus it is by grace through faith, not of works.
It is both a literal payment and a substitutionary payment.

There are no ad hominem's here.
The doctrine of "forgivenenss revoked" still remains a false doctrine not taught in Scripture.

The view I presented above has nothing to do with Calvinism, as I am not a Calvinist and don't wish to get into a Calvinist debate. I don't find "Calvin" in the Bible. He isn't a Biblical concept. Leave him out of this discussion.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: My statement "literally" says "paid the penalty." It means he paid the debt. In John 19:30, as Christ hung on the cross he cried out: "It is finished!" The work of salvation was finished. The debt was paid--both literally and substitutionarily. It was a literal debt. He paid the debt for OUR sins--the lost and the saved, the redeemed and the unredeemed, the ages past and the ages to come; in short the sins of mankind or the sins of the world. Christ died for us (the world)--Romans 5:8.

HP: Let me ask you DHK, what happened to the forgiveness and penalty paid for the sinner who stands guilty before God who you claim has had the complete, eternal, forgiveness paid for at the cross? When does the payment made for the sins of those that will in the end be eternally lost get 'revoked' or become non-effective in what you say was “”finished!” and that for eternity?

Were the sins of the unsaved paid for on the cross eternally once for all, or could the possibility exist that you might believe that it was only the sins of the saved that were literally paid for that you speak about being paid for 'once for all when Christ cried "It is Finished!?" Can you have it both ways? Can you have the penalty for sins being literally paid for and yet still being held against the lost and having them pay eternally for what you claim has already been accomlished on the cross? Was the literal payment made ineffective to accomplish its ends? If so, when does the price paid by Christ become ineffective to secure the salvation of the entire world?

 

[DHK]

HP: Let me ask you DHK, what happened to the forgiveness and penalty paid for the sinner who stands guilty before God who you claim has had the complete, eternal, forgiveness paid for at the cross? When does the payment made for the sins of those that will in the end be eternally lost get 'revoked' or become non-effecti ve in what you say was “”finished!” and that for eternity?

I, as a sinner saved by grace, will never stand guilty before God. My sins are paid at the cross I have comlete, eternal life and forgiveness of sins. So do all that believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and become "his children."

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

The payment was made at the cross. There is no further payment to be made. There never will be. How can the blood of Christ ever become ineffective? That is an insult to Christ! How can sins that He has forgiven and promised to forgive for all eternity ever be revoked? That is a false doctrine, a doctrine not taught in the Bible, a slap in the face of Jesus, something that makes Christ a liar!
The payment was made at the cross, once and for all; there is no other payment. What makes you think that there is?

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

Were the sins of the unsaved paid for on the cross eternally once for all, or could the possibility exist that you might believe that it was only the sins of the saved that were literally paid for that you speak about being paid for 'once for all when Christ cried "It is Finished!?"

The sins for the unsaved; the sins for the saved; the sins for the world; the sins for all were paid at the cross. I made that point perfectly clear in my post. There was no sin that Christ did not die for, when He died on the cross. He died for all.

Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Can you have it both ways? Can you have the penalty for sins being literally paid for and yet still being held against the lost and having them pay eternally for what you claim has already been accomlished on the cross?

I can't have it any way, but Jesus can! He came to die for the sins of the world. He said He did. He accomplished what He came to do. The sins of the lost are literally paid for. If they reject that payment they will eternally pay for their rejection, and will be eternally separated from God in the Lake of Fire. It is their choice. God did not make us robots. He gave us a choice to do good or evil. Jesus died for the sins of the world. Every one of us were lost at some point in time. If he did not die for the sins of the lost, then no one would be saved--not you, not I, not the Apostles, not Mary, no one. For we were all lost, before we were saved. Of course he came to die for the sins of the lost. We have to be lost before we are saved. Only the perishing can be saved.

Was the literal payment made ineffective to accomplish its ends? If so, when does the price paid by Christ become ineffective to secure the salvation of the entire world?

Don't insult Christ. His blood never becomes ineffective. It was a literal payment and always will be. It will never become ineffective. All who believe in that sacrifice will be saved. All who don't will remain lost in their sins. Nothing "was made ineffective." Nothing ever will be made ineffective. There is power in the blood, and there always will be--the power to save even from the uttermost. The blood of course being representative of the sacrifice of Christ, his atoning work on the cross.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

"Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

GE
Who is he who is going to claim he is 'you'? I would like to meet that Christian. Maybe the pope would put up his hand; but I for what it's worth do not consider the pope a Christian, but the antichrist. (And I'm particular about the company I prefer.)

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

"John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

GE
This is particularism and 'the eternal security of the elect' if ever there was! "Whosoever believeth"! -- it is all the work of redemption; all the feat of Omnipotent Grace alone and only.

How tired I get of getting so cross that one has to say the same thing a hundred times and the deaf hearing ears are only getting more deaf by it! (It proves my point: they will never hear unless by feat of Omnipotent Grace alone and only!)

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: The payment was made at the cross. There is no further payment to be made. There never will be. How can the blood of Christ ever become ineffective? That is an insult to Christ! How can sins that He has forgiven and promised to forgive for all eternity ever be revoked? That is a false doctrine, a doctrine not taught in the Bible, a slap in the face of Jesus, something that makes Christ a liar!

HP: How can a literal payment be made that secures ones forgiveness and yet their sins be held against them later if they reject Christ? What sins is God going to hold against if ‘all sins’ have been paid for??

Another problem is when you say 'all,' you are very emphatic. Why would not the rejection of Jesus Christ, which you most likely would consider a sin, have been paid for as well, being included in the 'all?' How can God hold ones sins against anyone, saint or sinner, if in fact a literal payment for them has been made covering all sins once for all? Can God simply overlook the payment and charge the lost with their sins that you say have been literally paid for? What kind of a literal payment would that be? It certainly would be an ineffective one at best, and represent a very wasteful economy.

 

[DHK]

HP: How can a literal payment be made that secures ones forgiveness and yet their sins be held against them later if they reject Christ? What sins is God going to hold against if ‘all sins’ have been paid for??

The Bible does not say that any sins are held against them at a later date. A true Christian does not reject Christ. You make assumptions that the Bible does not teach. God does not hold any sin against any believer. Where do you get such false teaching from?

Another problem is when you say 'all,' you are very emphatic. Why would not the rejection of Jesus Christ, which you most likely would consider a sin, have been paid for as well, being included in the 'all.?'

1. A Christian does not reject Christ. So your point is moot.
2. As far as the unbeliever is concerned, who never appropriated the sacrifice of Christ to himself, his sins were never forgiven in the first place. In order to have eternal life and the forgiveness of sins you must receive it. It is a gift. It must be received.

The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life.
--A gift must be actively received. When it is given it is never taken back.

How can God hold ones sins against anyone, saint or sinner, if in fact a literal payment for them has been made covering all sins once for all?

If God doesn't keep his promise of forgiving all the sins of the one who trusts in him for his salvation, then God is a liar. God does not lie. He made the payment for sin. He forgives those that come to him on the basis of that payment, the shed blood of Jesus Christ. (1Pet.3:18)

Can God simply overlook the payment and charge the lost with their sins that you say have been literally paid for?

A person goes to Hell because they reject Christ and the sacrifice He made on the cross. The lost are lost because of that very reason. They made a choice to reject the payment for their sins.

What kind of a literal payment would that be? It certainly would be an ineffective one at best, and represent a very wasteful economy.

That is a silly statement to make.
If you are in prison for some heinous crime. And I come with an offer to pay the penalty that will get you out of that prison (perhaps a hefty fine). And you reply: "I don't need your help. I am good enough on my own. I don't deserve to be here. I will make it on my own. My good works will get me out of here. May your money perish with you!"

My offer of a literal payment is what you call a wasteful economy. You rejected my offer, just as a sinner rejects the offer of Christ's payment for his sin. What is the waste? The waste is in the choice of the condemned person who doesn't have to perish, but does anyway because of the pride of his own heart.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Deleted post

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: The Bible does not say that any sins are held against them at a later date. A true Christian does not reject Christ. You make assumptions that the Bible does not teach. God does not hold any sin against any believer. Where do you get such false teaching from?

HP: I was addressing only one that has never been saved in my last post. Sorry if I did not make myself clear.

DHK: 2. As far as the unbeliever is concerned, who never appropriated the sacrifice of Christ to himself, his sins were never forgiven in the first place. In order to have eternal life and the forgiveness of sins you must receive it. It is a gift. It must be received.

HP: Now you are making a literal payment’s effectiveness conditioned upon the individual's acceptance of the gift. How is that a literal payment for a debt 'on the cross?' If it is conditional upon anything man does, how can it be eternal from the cross, seeing it is not made effective until one accepts, and is never made effective if one does not accept?? If it is never made effective as in the case of the lost that have not accepted this gift, then I would say the payment was not literal in the least. You cannot have a literal ‘payment’ that is conditional, and in reality not a literal payment until one accepts. Ones sins would still be as blameworthy as they ever have been until one accepts. How is that receiving an eternal payment for ‘all’ sins ‘once for all’ on the cross for 'all' men? Are you saying that God can satisfy an eternal debt for all sins ‘once for all’ yet it reality you say it is not made effective until one accepts? If accepting is a condition of it being effective, how can it be said to be literally paid antecedent to the accepting?

Your position tries to take two opposing sides at the same time.

 

[DHK]

Your position tries to take two opposing sides at the same time.

If I were a rich man I could make a literal payment and buy you a house. You have the choice to either reject my gift or receive my gift. Either way the payment is a literal payment. What is so difficult to understand about that?
The literal payment that Christ made on the cross is only efficacious if the person receives the payment (the sacrifice) that Christ paid on the cross.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: If I were a rich man I could make a literal payment and buy you a house. You have the choice to either reject my gift or receive my gift. Either way the payment is a literal payment. What is so difficult to understand about that?
The literal payment that Christ made on the cross is only efficacious if the person receives the payment (the sacrifice) that Christ paid on the cross.

HP: Would you agree that the house is not yours until you accept it? If so, you have just made salvation conditional upon a choice of man, a concept absolutely at antipodes with a literal payment as understood in theology. In reality no payment has been made in your ‘individual favor’ until you meet the conditions. In reality the house is not yours until you meet the conditions. Again, that is at antipodes with the notion of a literal payment.

A literal payment, in theology, is one without conditions, and is a completed transaction made at the time the sacrifice without any subsequent conditions having any bearing as to whether or not it will be effective in ones life or not. According to the literal payment theory, the house would have been deeded to you apart from any and all conditions at the time it was purchased period, no if and or but about it, and no conditions attached. It is a done deal at the time of the sacrifice, and all ends in view are accomplished in full once for all without conditions. What you are calling a literal payment is in light of the literal payment theory not literal in the least.

It is nice to know that you believe in a conditional salvation and not in the literal payment theory, although we would still differ on the stated conditions. Jesus did not, that I can remember, say simply accept my free gift. Jesus came preaching repentance, without which no man can be saved. Salvation will cost one everything. It is a death to self. Unless a seed falls to the ground and dies, it cannot bear life. We must die to be made alive.

 

[DHK]

HP: Would you agree that the house is not yours until you accept it? If so, you have just made salvation conditional upon a choice of man, a concept absolutely at antipodes with a literal payment as understood in theology. In reality no payment has been made in your ‘individual favor’ until you meet the conditions. In reality the house is not yours until you meet the conditions. Again, that is at antipodes with the notion of a literal payment.

You complicate a simple illustration. What if I say, If I buy you a "coffee mug..." Will that make more sense to you? A coffee mug has no deed. The gift has no conditions. I give; you receive. That is the so-called condition. In reality it is no condition at all is it? I never put conditions on my children receiving either a birthday gift or a Christmas gift. All they have to do is receive it. They don't work for; they don't do anything for it. They simply take it; receive it.
Salvation is the same way. One receives it. By faith one receives (according to his own choice or free will) salvation. It is a free gift.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

A literal payment, in theology, is one without conditions, and is a completed transaction made at the time the sacrifice without any subsequent conditions having any bearing as to whether or not it will be effective in ones life or not.

And salvation is without conditions. Jesus Christ made no condition for salvation. The GIFT of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. A gift comes without conditions. It received by faith.

According to the literal payment theory, the house would have been deeded to you apart from any and all conditions at the time it was purchased period, no if and or but about it, and no conditions attached.

In my illustration there were no conditions attached, just as there were no conditions attached if I offered or paid for a coffee cup for you. It was an illustration that you purposely complicated. Next time I will make the illustration more simple so that you can't complicate it. There are no conditions. Salvation is unconditional. It always has been. It has been unconditional in the sense that there is nothing that we can do but believe. Christ has paid the full price Himself.

It is a done deal at the time of the sacrifice, and all ends in view are accomplished in full once for all without conditions. What you are calling a literal payment is in light of the literal payment theory not literal in the least.

Only in your opinion.

It is nice to know that you believe in a conditional salvation and not in the literal payment theory, although we would still differ on the stated conditions.

That is where you are wrong. I never suggested that there are conditions in salvation.

Jesus did not, that I can remember, say simply accept my free gift.

Actually he did, and many times over. "All who comes to me I will never cast out."

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Jesus came preaching repentance, without which no man can be saved. Salvation will cost one everything. It is a death to self. Unless a seed falls to the ground and dies, it cannot bear life. We must die to be made alive.

Jesus came preaching "You must be born again." Salvation cost one believe in the sacrificial work of the Lord Jesus Christ and that is all. Your quote above is not true. It speaks more of discipleship than salvation. You have complicated the simple message of salvation greatly.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Speaking of conditions of salvation in answering the OP, here is our Lord with clear condition of seeing our faith being turned to sight. Mt 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.’

Note that the salvation here spoken of is yet to be accomplished in its finality, ‘shall be’ denoting a time yet to come 'before' that ‘house’ DHK spoke about, is deeded in finality to the individual. Now we hold the promise of eternal life by faith, not sight, but then, having endured to the end, we will possess it in its final reality.