can we loose salvation ......

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Quote:
HP: 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.

DHK: 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.

HP: Can you not see the counter positions you are espousing at one and the same time? First you tell me that I can either accept it or reject it, then you tell me that it is without any conditions. If it is without any conditions I have NOTHING to do with it period. It will happen as necessitated in spite of any action of my will whatsoever. If it cannot happen without my will involved, then it is indeed conditioned upon my will. Take one side or the other, for they are at antipodes with each other.

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

DHK: 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………. 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.

HP: Are the lost doomed because of failing to meet the condition of acceptance? Is that not precisely what you say here? You say that they are lost due to the fact that they made a choice ‘to reject the payment for their sins.” If that is not clearly and precisely indicating a condition of gaining or loosing forgiveness, the Pope is not a Catholic.

 

[DHK]

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.

This is about the "nth" time that I have mentioned to you that when you think that you are quoting my position then quote what I have said. Otherwise don't mention it at all. The fact is I have never commented on this verse, so how would you know what I believe? Inferences and innuendo don't count. That is what got the other thread closed.

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.’

Read the context. Jesus is speaking to his disciples, those that already have salvation and cannot lose it. He is not speaking of spiritual salvation. They already possess eternal life. They cannot lose it.

Secondly the further application is that it is a reference to the coming Millennial Kingdom.

Thirdly, as he speaks of that coming Kingdom he speaks of persecution. There will be a great persecution of the Jews just before the Kingdom appears. That persecution is described in places in the OT, in passages like this one, and in the Book of Revelation. They that endure to the end shall be saved (not spiritually, but physically). Jesus will come and physically save them from persecution and death. Those that do not endure to the end will be martyred.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by 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.
DHK: This is about the "nth" time that I have mentioned to you that when you think that you are quoting my position then quote what I have said. Otherwise don't mention it at all. The fact is I have never commented on this verse, so how would you know what I believe? Inferences and innuendo don't count. That is what got the other thread closed.

HP: I was not quoting your position in the least, nor was I remarking in any way about anything you have said about this particular verse. I was using your illustration of one buying a house for another and relating it to the verse I brought up. You appear to be beside yourself looking for ways to be offended.

DHK: Secondly the further application is that it is a reference to the coming Millennial Kingdom.

HP: That is a convenient presupposition not supported by the text itself.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by 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

That is true. Christ is speaking to His own followers - His disciples in Matt 10 where He says "DO NOT fear those who kill the body but can not kill the soul but rather FEAR Him who can destroy BOTH body and soul in hell fire". His argument is not "pay no attention to the warnings in these words of mine - you are once-saved-always-saved -- so please pay no attention to My words of warning".

Those who imagine that the true "saved" followers were not supposed to be listening to the warning He gives them - are not taking this chapter seriously.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said -
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.

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.

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.

Hence my points list above (1 and 2)

1 John 2:2 "He is the ATONING SACRIFICE for our sins" NIV -- a point made with reference to the BIBLE solution of atonement NOT the pagan notion of "appeasement".

God so LOVED that HE gave -- yes really.

And the debt is paid in the ATONEMENT model of Lev 16 according to "God".

I am going to have to go with God on that one.

And the ATONEMENT model INCLUDEs the Work of Christ as High Priest (Heb 7-10, Lev 16) "according to God".

I am going to have to go with God on that one as well.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: 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.

HP: Let there be no mistake, I believe Christ died for all, and that His sufferings were sufficient for God to set aside the penalty of sin on the account of all sinner IF the sinners will comply with the stated conditions.

In light of your comment BR, how could Christ ‘literally’ pay a quantified penalty owed by each sinner? Eternal separation from God is the penalty for sin. Christ only had one life to offer and only died one time. How is not a logical impossibility for His sufferings or death to be ‘quantified’ as you say?

To me it is absurd to even try and comprehend in such a manner. Reason demands that his sufferings and death were a governmental substitution as opposed to being quantified. We need to take a look at this issue by itself as time permits.

 

[DHK]

Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
HP: That is a convenient presupposition not supported by the text itself.

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.’

Who was Christ speaking to?
Take the verse in its context.
He was speaking to His disciples, in a context that was speaking of end times. There is no possible way that this verse speaks of spiritual salvation unless you are making the assumption that Christ has called around himself disciples (the 12) that are all unsaved, and won't be saved until their death. The consequence of that belief is that the entire NT was written by unsaved men!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

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.’

DHK: Secondly the further application is that it is a reference to the coming Millennial Kingdom.
DHK: He was speaking to His disciples, in a context that was speaking of end times. There is no possible way that this verse speaks of spiritual salvation unless you are making the assumption that Christ has called around himself disciples (the 12) that are all unsaved, and won't be saved until their death. The consequence of that belief is that the entire NT was written by unsaved men!

HP: Can one assume from these two remarks you made concerning the same passage, that the millennial kingdom of necessity must have only existed in the days of the 12 apostles, for according to you that is precisely and only those to whom the warning is given and to no other? I just want to get the context right as you see it, in your own words, before I respond in depth.

 

[DHK]

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.’

HP: Can one assume from these two remarks you made concerning the same passage, that the millennial kingdom of necessity must have only existed in the days of the 12 apostles, for according to you that is precisely and only those to whom the warning is given and to no other? I just want to get the context right as you see it, in your own words, before I respond in depth.

Cross-reference it. Compare Scripture with Scripture. You will find almost the exact same Scripture in Mat.24

Matthew 24:13-15 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
15 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
16 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand).

The abomination of desolation takes place in the middle of the Tribulation Period. That hasn't happened yet. He is speaking of the Jews, who must endure during that period of time to the end when Christ will come again, and they, as an nation will all be saved (Rom.11:22). However there is no doubt that there will be some that will be martyred for their faith. The verse is not directed to Christians; it is directed to Jews and it is speaking of the Kingdom. The context here makes it very obvious.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Cross-reference it. Compare Scripture with Scripture. You will find almost the exact same Scripture in Mat.24

HP: You mean compare one presupposition you read into one text with the other presuppositions you read into yet another text.

You read into both texts what ever presuppositions you so desire, but I for one will do my best to heed the warnings and teach others to do the same.

 

[charles_creech78]

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Meaning of condemnation acting under a feigned part a decision (the function or the effect, for or against [“crime”]): - avenge, condemned, condemnation, damnation, + go to law, JUDGEMENT. 1Jn 3:4 Whoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law.[1Jn 3:9 Whoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and (he cannot sin,) because he is born of God. ] The key word in this is COMMIT. what does that mean:A primitive root; properly to cover up; used only figuratively to act covertly, that is, treacherously: - transgress, (commit, do a) TRESSPASS. Why can this man sin not? Because he is born of God. So if you COMMIT SIN what are you Bob Ryan? Are you of God or of the Devil? There is only two things you can be. Answer this do you keep yourself from Commiting sin or is it God?1Jn 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Look as you can see in this verse that word committeth is there. But God who you say is lieing said that if you are born of him cannot commit sin. If you cannot commit sin then what are you going to be Judged by. That is if you have been born again of the word of God WHICH LIVETH AND ABIDETH (FOREVER). What is the word of God?Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. The word is Jesus which we are born of.Let me give you the verse Luk 8:11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. What is the word of God again? Jesus Christ.Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. There it is again the word of God. Being Born again of a incorruptible seed which LIVETH AND ABIDETH FOREVER. So we know who the word of God is. Who is the seed?1Jn 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his SEED remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. Ok what are we born again of?The word of God (Jesus Christ)and this verse right here says it all.1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. That seed is Jesus Christ the word of God which liveth and abideth FOREVER.

 

[DHK]

HP: You mean compare one presupposition you read into one text with the other presuppositions you read into yet another text.

You read into both texts what ever presuppositions you so desire, but I for one will do my best to heed the warnings and teach others to do the same.

This is the third time I have heard this sanctimonious quote from you without one feeble attempt at explaining the text. You ignore the text completely and with an holier than thou attitude just sit back and say: "I for one will do my best etc., etc. blah blah blah...."

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
HP: 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.

1. I see no such "definition in theology" for the term "literal payment".

2. IF I DID find that this is the "meaning" that some people pour into the term "literal payment" then I would argue that I do not agree with what "they call" literal payment as a doctrine.

When I speak to "literal payment" I am speaking to the Lev 16 principle God defines "not man" - regarding "Atonement". In God's definition there is "An atoning sacrifice" and there is ALSO the work of Atonement the process of ATonement that is done by the High Priest.

Christ is our "Atoning Sacrifice" at the cross.

Christ is now our "High Priest" according to Heb 4, 8 and 9.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: 1. I see no such "definition in theology" for the term "literal payment".

HP: That is the common terminology used to depict the atonement viewed, as the Calvinist does, as a forensic proceeding. Viewing it as such one holding to a literal payment theory approaches the atonement as one would view a court proceeding where a specific amount of suffering has been subscribed and paid for a specific incurred debt on the part of an individual.

Such is not the case with the atonement. The atonement did not literally pay for any individual sin, but rather is best viewed as a substitutionary sacrifice in which God saw the sufferings of Christ as sufficient to allow God to governmentally forgive individual sins IF they would by faith place their trust in the atoning work of Christ and repent for all sins that are past. God saw the sacrifice and sufferings made by Christ as a sufficient substitute for the rightfully inflicted penalty required by the law, allowing God to governmentally treat the repentant sinner as if though he had not sinned. By this atonement God upheld the just penalty of the law, seeing Christ made an acceptable substitution for all that will by faith repent and believe in Christ for the forgiveness of sins and the hope of a new life in Christ.

The atonement is best seen in light of a governmental substitute being made on behalf of all infractions of the law, which then is applied to the individual in the form of a pardon from sin, IF they will fulfill the conditions God has mandated as necessary for that pardon from sin on an individual basis to be granted. The way for salvation was made possible for all on the cross, yet no ones sins are in reality atoned for until the blood is applied to our account as we repent and in faith trust God to forgive our sins that are past. The cross built the bridge whereby it is possible for all to be forgiven, but no one is forgiven until we fulfill the stated conditions of salvation.

On the cross the way to God was indeed finished, and the only sacrifice that can be made was made and finished, yet in order for that way to be appropriated in our individual lives we must repent and place our faith in that shed blood of Christ in order for it to made effective on our behalf. Christ built the bridge and now we must allow His sufferings to be applied to our account as we voluntarily fulfill the mandated conditions.

BR: 2. IF I DID find that this is the "meaning" that some people pour into the term "literal payment" then I would argue that I do not agree with what "they call" literal payment as a doctrine.


When I speak to "literal payment" I am speaking to the Lev 16 principle God defines "not man" - regarding "Atonement".

HP: I am having trouble following you here. Can you try and explain it in a different way to help me understand your position better?

BR: In God's definition there is "An atoning sacrifice" and there is ALSO the work of Atonement the process of ATonement that is done by the High Priest.

HP: Again, I am still unsure we are completely on the same page here. We may not be far off. I would agree that although the atonement has been made and there is nothing about that specific atonement that needs to be changed or finished for it to be all that God sees as necessary to allow for Him to under certain conditions forgive the sinner, the blood still has to be applied to us as individuals in order for that atonement to be made effective on our behalf. Therefore He even now indeed is acting on behalf of all those that will repent and believe, as their High Priest, making what before was ‘possible’ now effective as he applies the blood to their account for sins that are past. I believe to some extent or another, this process continues as long as sin and repentance are committed and invoked in this world. I believe that Christ’s work on our behalf is indeed ongoing, making Him a Perpetual High Priest on our behalf.

As to what Christ will do on our behalf once we stand before God and are judged in Him is to me somewhat of a mystery. I could see Him continuing indefinitely in one capacity or another as our High Priest. I see nothing that will change the fact of our free agency in heaven and consequently our need of a continual High Priest. I am certainly not trying to create doctrine here, just speaking as to how I might see it now from my limited perspective.

 

[BobRyan]

1. When some people say "atonement" they mean "the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross". But what I see in God's description in Lev 16 is that the actual act in killing the "Lord's Goat" is only the "Atoning SacrificE" portion of the ENTIRe chapter -- the entire PROCESS God defines in Lev 16 as "Atonement". In God's model it includes BOTH the work of Christ as the SACRIFICE and it includes the work of Christ AS the High Priest in Lev 16.

You stated it this way

Therefore He even now indeed is acting on behalf of all those that will repent and believe, as their High Priest, making what before was ‘possible’ now effective as he applies the blood to their account for sins that are past. I believe to some extent or another, this process continues as long as sin and repentance are committed and invoked in this world. I believe that Christ’s work on our behalf is indeed ongoing, making Him a Perpetual High Priest on our behalf.

And that is what I too believe.

2. In your statement on "Literal payment" you basically gave a definition that included not only the fact of Christ's death, and the fact that His suffering met the exact requirements of God's Law regarding the suffering debt owed by each person -- but also that it was applied then and there to each person. (And clearly if such were the case then the Atonement in all it's most complete sense in Lev 16 would have had to have somehow been completed and ENDED with the sacrifice and BEFORE the High Priest did anything at all with that blood sacrifice).

My position is that the Atoning Sacrifice (as it is called in 1John 2:2 NIV) was "completed at the Cross" . But the high priestly work of Christ ALSO needed in that FULL Lev 16 concept of "Atonement" could only BEGIN once Christ BEGAN His work as High Priest (work that we SEE beginning in Heb 8-10).

The followon to that is that the work of Christ as High Priest is HOW the specific blood payment is APPLIED to each individual. Christ officiates as Heb 8-9 says He does in the Sanctuary in Heaven - "not made with hands" and He administers His OWN blood case-by-case for those who claim the blood of Christ and are born-again. He is our intercessor the "ONE MEDIATOR" between God and Man. A High Priest who is the source of salvation to ALL that seek Him.

IF you try to wrap up ALL of this and bundle it back 2000 years ago at the cross (such that Christ does not really accomplish anything else of "significance" in terms of the Gospel or atonement over these past 20000 years)- then you end up with Calvinism and a definition for "literal payment" such as you gave earlier and such that I could not agree to believing as having been completed at that time.

On the cross the way to God was indeed finished, and the only sacrifice that can be made was made and finished, yet in order for that way to be appropriated in our individual lives we must repent and place our faith in that shed blood of Christ in order for it to made effective on our behalf. Christ built the bridge and now we must allow His sufferings to be applied to our account as we voluntarily fulfill the mandated conditions.

Preach it!

This is the historic position held by those with whom I join in worship to God our Creator, Savior and High Priest week after week.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Having said all of that - where you and I have gotten tangled up in the past is on the term "forensic". I do believe that the literal suffering and death of Christ on the cross was such as to provide the "literal suffering and death" demanded (literally) by the Law of God and literally owed by the sinner. A debt "consisting of decrees against us" (NASB Col 2) where the Law of God identifies what is sin and also specifies in the courts of heaven - the exact payment of suffering owed for each and every sin. So while the suffering of Christ is measured and found to be exactly what the law demands for ALL of the sins for ALL of mankind in ALL of tiime- it is only APPLIED to the sinner under the "ATonement Model" whereby the HIGH PRIEST determines case-by-case who will get that application. And that work of Christ as High Priest is still going on for us today --- the ONE Mediator between God and man applying the merits of HIS OWN blood -- case by case to those who "Fall upon the cornerstone and are broken".

As for the "decress against us" vs the actual LAW that determines the penalty list from which those decrees are drawn.

Like a highway patrol officer writing out a ticket and the judge determining the exact penalty owed for each infraction. If a bank places into escrow the full price of what is owed in speeding tickets for all students of a given high-school and then ONLY pays the tickets for those students that come to the bank manager and accept the terms -- accept the conditions - CHOOSE to go to driiver's Ed and CHOOSE to adopt safe driving practices -- then Paying the ticket does not abolish the law that demands such a fine be payed -- rather it upholds that Law until such time as someone says "forget about those penalties we don't pay attention to that law any more". And if that should ever happen then "no savior is needed" for "no penalty is owed by the transgressor".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In Matt 10 Christ said that if anyone wishes to save His Life - he must be willing to lose it -- to deny himself, take up his cross and follow Christ.

The Atonement model means that we die to self and choose to live the new-birth, born-again Christian life. In Matt 7 Christ speaks to the group that wants to be forgiven but will have no part of choosing the new life in Christ -- choosing to DO what God has called them to do.

In John 15 he also deals with that case again - those in Christ who bear no fruit are removed and cast into the fire.

In matt 18 you see it with the case of "forgiveness revoked" for those who refuse to forgive others EVEN though THEY have been fully forgiven. Their debt is RETURNED to them under this mode of Atonement and the condition of "dying daily" of choosing to take up your cross and follow Christ.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR:
"In God's definition there is "An atoning sacrifice" and there is ALSO the work of Atonement the process of ATonement that is done by the High Priest.

Christ is our "Atoning Sacrifice" at the cross."

GE

It is no sacrifice that is "atoning" (for sin). It is God, who atones for sin; and He atoned for sin once for all by the sacrifice of His Son; and God finished atonement for ever for sin by the Offering of His Own Sacrifice in and through Resurrection from the dead. When and as Christ rose from the dead, the last enemy of all, death, was swallowed up in Victory. That is 'atonement in God's definition of it': It is all the works of God FINISHED by Christ Jesus, in Him, through Him, and: for the sake of Him.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR:
"The Atonement model means that we die to self and choose to live the new-birth, born-again Christian life."

GE
Your explanation or 'model' explains legalism, not salvation. Where have you seen we die to self of ourselves and choose to live the new-birth as though we could choose the new-birth. We could not even choose to be born of our earthly mothers - how much less of the Spirit and Grace? Where do you think we have received that freedom and that 'choice' to live the 'born-again Christian life'? Just as much as it required the omnipotence of God to raise up Christ from the dead, it required the omnipotence of God for Christ to lay down His life. So much the more does it require the omnipotence of God for us to die to self, and to live to God. A matter of mere human choice? Who would believe you? By what spirit would one believe you? By the spirit of deception maybe!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: I do believe that the literal suffering and death of Christ on the cross was such as to provide the "literal suffering and death" demanded (literally) by the Law of God and literally owed by the sinner. A debt "consisting of decrees against us" (NASB Col 2) where the Law of God identifies what is sin and also specifies in the courts of heaven - the exact payment of suffering owed for each and every sin.

HP: Here is where we completely disagree. The penalty for sin fro one person is eternal separation from God. The penalty for two people sinning is two individuals eternally separated from God. I is logically impossible for one person to ‘quantitatively’ in a literal sense pay for any other sins than their own. Christ could not have, in the flesh, ‘literally’ paid the sin debt of the entire world as you say. If He did, we have more than one problem. Not only is it completely illogical for Him to be able to do so,. It makes Christ suffering far more than He needed to, with much if not the largest portion of His suffering rendered ineffective to secure its intended end. This establishes God as running a very wasteful economy. It makes God placing back upon the individual sins that He promised that when He forgives to cast them into the deepest sea, ‘never to be remembered again.” It makes every man women and child as being born with the payment literally made for their sins, thereby a clean slate, when in fact they never have committed any in the first place, and certainly have done nothing to see them forgiven. You tell us that man is born with original sin. If all sins have ‘literally’ and ‘quantitatively’ been paid for, sin could not be accounted to their account period. Maybe you do not really believe in original sin? If you do, tell me who you are to hold sin to ones charge that you say does not exist? Can a man be a sinner and at one and the same time have every sin already ‘literally’ paid for? Again the scenario you paint presents babies as pure, having every possible sin they could ever commit having been set aside and paid for before they are ever commit the first sin, yet you denote them as being born in sin. I see that as a clear contradiction.

BR: Like a highway patrol officer writing out a ticket and the judge determining the exact penalty owed for each infraction. If a bank places into escrow the full price of what is owed in speeding tickets for all students of a given high-school and then ONLY pays the tickets for those students that come to the bank manager and accept the terms -- accept the conditions - CHOOSE to go to driiver's Ed and CHOOSE to adopt safe driving practices -- then Paying the ticket does not abolish the law that demands such a fine be payed -- rather it upholds that Law until such time as someone says "forget about those penalties we don't pay attention to that law any more". And if that should ever happen then "no savior is needed" for "no penalty is owed by the transgressor".

HP: Where does Scripture speak or imply that the forgiveness and penalty paid for sin is in ‘escrow?’ That is a concept unknown to Scripture as far as I am aware of.

When Christ died for the sins of the entire world, it simply means that Christ suffered as a substitute for them, in such a way that God saw His sufferings as sufficient to set aside the penalty for all sins under certain conditions. It was a governmental action that made possible forgiveness for all sins, yet by no means ‘literally’ paid for all sins ‘quantitatively’ as you say. Christ’s sufferings made it ‘possible’ that all sins could be forgiven, but no specific sin is forgiven until the sinner meets the conditions for forgiveness, which are to repent and have faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Still, in common parlance, it can be said that ‘in a sense’ He indeed paid for the sins of the entire world on the cross, IF one clearly understands that to say it in that way is not speaking of any sin in particular, yet the means by which the penalty for all sins that could possibly be committed had indeed been accomplished, once for all. Christ became our substitute for the penalty and debt we incur when we sin, and is applied to our account as we fulfill the conditions of forgiveness. That by no means implies that any future infractions of the law by one once forgiven will not be fully charged to our account apart from renewed repentance and faith. That would not be so much ‘forgiveness revoked’ as it would be ‘new penalties incurred.’