Logic and the Literal Payment Theory

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

The words, phrase, and ideas we project have clear logical implications. To make a statement and then to deny its logical implications is to practice self deception. Let me illustrate.

The notion of the literal payment theory has over and over been affirmed by many on this list as a valid explanation of what was accomplished on the cross. It basically is saying that all sins have been literally paid for on the cross. Many claim that every sin they have or ever will commit was literally paid for on the cross and their only obligation is to simply have faith and believe that such is true to receive eternal life that cannot be taken away. Why? Again, due to the fact that the forgiveness received is eternal in nature. Let us examine the logic implications of such a belief.

First, if all sins are literally and eteranlly paid for at the cross, the debt of sin would have been eternally set aside. If one insists that the debt of all their sins has been eternally set aside at the cross, AND that Christ died for the sins of the entire world, tell me how logically or otherwise why one is not forced to believe in universalism? Can something be set aside eternally for every man, and yet not be set aside in the case of some, at the same time in the same sense? Can something (sin in this case) exist and not exist, be set aside and not set aside, at the same time in the same sense? Am I making the problem of the logical implications thus far clear? Can anyone on the list show how the logical implications I am presenting concerning the literal payment theory are in any way faulty or in error?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Let me ask my question in a slightly different way. Is the forgiveness those that hold to the literal payment theory espouse, eternal forgiveness? When Christ forgave the sins of the elect, OR the sins of the entire world on the cross, did He forgive them eternally or not? I would like to see both 5 point Calvinists, and those with differing beliefs such as DHK or those believing close to that which DHK believes, to answer this question. I believe any fair minded individual can see the merits in such a question. It is a fair question that must be answered if one is honestly in the pursuit of the truth.

 

[TCGreek]

I'm a 10 point calvinist, so I'm excluded. :wavey:

 

[TCGreek]

HP, are you willing to go with what Scripture says, or just content on logical propositions?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCG: HP, are you willing to go with what Scripture says, or just content on logical propositions?

HP: We are looking to examine all evidence, regardless if it is found in reason, Scripture or experience. God has granted to man reason and an analytical mind to discern the truth by. There is truth outside of Scripture we must need look carefully into it, but Scripture can NEVER be ignored or simply set aside.

Give it a shot. Be the first one on your block to respond!:laugh:

 

[TCGreek]

HP: We are looking to examine all evidence, regardless if it is found in reason, Scripture or experience. God has granted to man reason and an analytical mind to discern the truth by. There is truth outside of Scripture we must need look carefully into it, but Scripture can NEVER be ignored or simply set aside.

Give it a shot. Be the first one on your block to respond!:laugh:

Here's reason:

If Christ actually died for all, then all should be saved. This is universalism.

Now, if all are not saved, then Christ didn't die for all.

But if we say Christ died only for some but not for all, then only those Christ died for will be saved. This is calvinism.

If we say Christ died for all but only potentially, then all can be saved but not all are saved. This is arminianism.

But what is the difference between those who are saved are those who are not saved in a potential plan?

The difference then must be with those who have somehow appropriated the potential plan of the cross.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCG: Here's reason:

If Christ actually died for all, then all should be saved. This is universalism.

Now, if all are not saved, then Christ didn't die for all.

HP: That is not using reason to me and I do not think it is for you either. It can only be assumed first from a position of a literal payment, and then by rejecting Scripture and experience.

TCG: But if we say Christ died only for some but not for all, then only those Christ died for will be saved. This is calvinism.

HP: Ah yes. That is indeed Calvinism, and I believe it to be at antipodes with not only Scripture but reason as well. Just the same, coming from a perspective of the literal payment theory as Calvinist’s do, it is the only logical response for them to give. The one that says, I believe in the literal payment theory, yet rejects a limited and irresistible atonement is highly inconsistent and makes havoc of logic and reason, again coming from the theory of a literal payment.

TCG: If we say Christ died for all but only potentially, then all can be saved but not all are saved. This is arminianism.

HP: Not being an Arminian myself, I might word it slightly different, but none the less I believe the position you outlined here as being far closer to the truth that either the Calvinist or the one that starts from the Calvinist position of a literal payment theory, such as DHK, but does not accept the logical conclusions of that theory, choosing rather to at least on the surface claim to hold to some idea of a free will being involved. I hope as we go along to have DHK or others that believe like him join in so as to clarify their position.

TCG: But what is the difference between those who are saved are those who are not saved in a potential plan?

The difference then must be with those who have somehow appropriated the potential plan of the cross.

HP: I see you as having a good grasp on the Arminian position, which is very close to what I believe concerning the Atonement.:thumbs: If one desires to call me an Arminian because I associate closely with them on this issue, I might disagree but I will consider it an honor to be closely aligned to them on this issue at least. We are indeed held accountable and responsible by God to form certain intents ‘without which’ the plan of salvation will not be appropriated to our hearts and lives.

 

[TCGreek]

HP: That is not using reason to me and I do not think it is for you either. It can only be assumed first from a position of a literal payment, and then by rejecting Scripture and experience.

So, I take it that you reject literal payment for sins, correct?

HP: Ah yes. That is indeed Calvinism, and I believe it to be at antipodes with not only Scripture but reason as well. Just the same, coming from a perspective of the literal payment theory as Calvinist’s do, it is the only logical response for them to give. The one that says, I believe in the literal payment theory, yet rejects a limited and irresistible atonement is highly inconsistent and makes havoc of logic and reason, again coming from the theory of a literal payment.





So you don't see Scripture supporting the literal theory, as you dubbed it?

HP: Not being an Arminian myself, I might word it slightly different, but none the less I believe the position you outlined here as being far closer to the truth that either the Calvinist or the one that starts from the Calvinist position of a literal payment theory, such as DHK, but does not accept the logical conclusions of that theory, choosing rather to at least on the surface claim to hold to some idea of a free will being involved. I hope as we go along to have DHK or others that believe like him join in so as to clarify their position.

Must the doctrines of Scripture fit perfectly our human reasoning?

Are we to believe that the Bible was written for us to cast propositions into a logic machine and out comes perfect forms and patterns?

HP: I see you as having a good grasp on the Arminian position, which is very close to what I believe concerning the Atonement.:thumbs: If one desires to call me an Arminian because I associate closely with them on this issue, I might disagree but I will consider it an honor to be closely aligned to them on this issue at least. We are indeed held accountable and responsible by God to form certain intents ‘without which’ the plan of salvation will not be appropriated to our hearts and lives.

So, you think the death of Christ didn't actually save anyone but only made it possible for us to be saved, correct?

Do you have Scripture for your position?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCG: So, I take it that you reject literal payment for sins, correct?

HP: Yes, you are correct.

HP: Ah yes. That is indeed Calvinism,

TCG: So you don't see Scripture supporting the literal theory, as you dubbed it?

HP: No. I do not.
Quote:
HP: Not being an Arminian myself,

TCG: Must the doctrines of Scripture fit perfectly our human reasoning?

Are we to believe that the Bible was written for us to cast propositions into a logic machine and out comes perfect forms and patterns?

HP: Excellent question. First, as we approach and study the Word of God, we all wear two hats. We are theologians as well as philosophers. We can error as either, and we must always examine both positions to see where we might be in error. God gave us a mind to think and reason with, combined with intuitive first truths of reason without which we could understand nothing concerning morals, blameworthiness or praiseworthiness. Scripture is not written so as to be approached apart from the intuitive truths God gives to man. We well may have many uncertainties in our theology, but one thing we should never do is to entertain absurdities. My goal is to ferret out some absudities found within our positions.

TCG: So, you think the death of Christ didn't actually save anyone but only made it possible for us to be saved, correct?

HP: Yes, I believe that is true. As we examine it in light of God given reason I trust it will become evident as to where the truth must lie.

TCG: Do you have Scripture for your position?

HP: Certainly. I use the same Scriptures the Calvinist uses but view them differently for various reasons. As we go along we will see this played out in particular passages.

For now, I would like to stay focused for a moment on the ‘eternal aspect’ of forgiveness. I cannot tell you how many times I have been told that salvation is eternal, and if one believes you can turn from or reject salvations grace that we make God out to be a liar. I believe that is completely a false charge, but to illustrate my point I am going to ask those that believe that Christ died for the sins of the entire world, and that hold to the literal payment theory, to answer my question as whether or not the forgiveness paid for on the cross of all present past and future sins is eternal in scope. Sometimes we need to examine our positions and logic to see if the charges we lay at the feet of others are fair and valid. How about you TCG? Are you coming from a Calvinist perspective of a literal payment, concluding that Christ only died for the sins of the elect, or do you hold to a position like DHK which believes in a literal payment but claims that Christ died for the sins of the entire world and that man has to exercise his free will to be saved?

This is one of the most crucial areas of theology we are discussing. Error in this regard and we will find ourselves in deeper error in other issues. We would do well to go carefully and prayerfully over this issue.

 

[TCGreek]

HP: Yes, you are correct.

I guess that is where we differ.

HP: No. I do not.
Quote:
HP: Not being an Arminian myself,

Neither am I.

HP: Excellent question. First, as we approach and study the Word of God, we all wear two hats. We are theologians as well as philosophers. We can error as either, and we must always examine both positions to see where we might be in error. God gave us a mind to think and reason with, combined with intuitive first truths of reason without which we could understand nothing concerning morals, blameworthiness or praiseworthiness. Scripture is not written so as to be approached apart from the intuitive truths God gives to man. We well may have many uncertainties in our theology, but one thing we should never do is to entertain absurdities. My goal is to ferret out some absudities found within our positions.

Well, HP, I believe we have a resident teacher in the Holy Spirit aid us in the understanding of biblical truths:

"We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 15 The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments" (1 Cor 2:12-15, TNIV, emphasis mine).

Human reasoning is defective because of sin. We cannot rely on it alone to bring us to God. That's Pelagian like.

HP: Yes, I believe that is true. As we examine it in light of God given reason I trust it will become evident as to where the truth must lie.

On that we agree.

HP: Certainly. I use the same Scriptures the Calvinist uses but view them differently for various reasons. As we go along we will see this played out in particular passages.

You're right about that. That is why we have all these theologies written in church history.

For now, I would like to stay focused for a moment on the ‘eternal aspect’ of forgiveness. I cannot tell you how many times I have been told that salvation is eternal, and if one believes you can turn from or reject salvations grace that we make God out to be a liar. I believe that is completely a false charge, but to illustrate my point I am going to ask those that believe that Christ died for the sins of the entire world, and that hold to the literal payment theory, to answer my question as whether or not the forgiveness paid for on the cross of all present past and future sins is eternal in scope. Sometimes we need to examine our positions and logic to see if the charges we lay at the feet of others are fair and valid. How about you TCG? Are you coming from a Calvinist perspective of a literal payment, concluding that Christ only died for the sins of the elect, or do you hold to a position like DHK which believes in a literal payment but claims that Christ died for the sins of the entire world and that man has to exercise his free will to be saved?

HP, I believe Christ died for many like he said (Matt 20:28). And I believe he died for the world like he said ((John 1:29).

I see nothing in Scripture to convince that Jesus' death was not literal.

What Scripture do you have that his death was not literal?

The benefits of Christ death must be appropriated by the faith of sinners. A person must believe (Eph 2:8).

I do believe in the eternal security of what the Bible says:

"For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy" (Heb 10:14, TNIV).

This is one of the most crucial areas of theology we are discussing. Error in this regard and we will find ourselves in deeper error in other issues. We would do well to go carefully and prayerfully over this issue.

That's why we need to be patient with each other as we do biblical theology.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCG: HP, I believe Christ died for many like he said (Matt 20:28). And I believe he died for the world like he said ((John 1:29).

I see nothing in Scripture to convince that Jesus' death was not literal.

What Scripture do you have that his death was not literal?

HP: It is not that His death and sufferings were not 'literal.' That is a given. What the literal payment theory expresses is the notion that a literal transaction took place where specific amount of sins were paid for by a specific price. The method in which the literal payment theory approaches the atonement could be likened to a forensic proceeding where a specific penalty is meted out for a specific crime. That is what the atonement was not nor could it have been. (I will get into what I believe Scripture represents the atonement as consisting of later) As I have stated repeatedly, the penalty for sin is eternal separation from God. That Christ did not ‘literally pay’ even once or He would still be separated from God, let alone millions of times over for every sinner that has sinned. To believe otherwise is to entertain one of those absurdities I spoke about that we need to avoid at all costs.

TCG: The benefits of Christ death must be appropriated by the faith of sinners. A person must believe (Eph 2:8).

HP: Absolutely. Then would it be safe to assume that you reject the notion that Christ, on the cross, apart from any appropriation on our part via repentance and faith, was eternally forgiven? That is the question at stake here.

TCG: I do believe in the eternal security of what the Bible says:

"For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy"

HP: Set that issue aside for a moment. Try and stay focused not on OSAS or not, but rather the atonement and the ramification of it. Certainly OSAS will invariably be addressed at some point in time, but for now, with as much as lieth within you, try to shelve that idea and concentrate if possible on the ramifications of the atonement. Fair enough?

Focus once again on the eternal aspect I am addresing. Were the sins that were forgiven on the cross eternally forgiven? You gave a response last time that I believe speaks to this direct question, but I would like to see, if possible, a direct answer to the question so there is no confusion as to what you believe.

 

[TCGreek]

HP: It is not that His death and sufferings were not 'literal.' That is a given. What the literal payment theory expresses is the notion that a literal transaction took place where specific amount of sins were paid for by a specific price. The method in which the literal payment theory approaches the atonement could be likened to a forensic proceeding where a specific penalty is meted out for a specific crime. That is what the atonement was not nor could it have been. (I will get into what I believe Scripture represents the atonement as consisting of later) As I have stated repeatedly, the penalty for sin is eternal separation from God. That Christ did not ‘literally pay’ even once or He would still be separated from God, let alone millions of times over for every sinner that has sinned. To believe otherwise is to entertain one of those absurdities I spoke about that we need to avoid at all costs.

HP, literal is shorthand for literal payment theory. I thought that was obvious. :laugh:

HP, it seems like you're depending more on Reason than Revelation.

If I were to go with mere reason, then maybe I might sound like you.

But if I go with revelation, then I must believe the atonement literally paid for the sins of sinners.

HP: Absolutely. Then would it be safe to assume that you reject the notion that Christ, on the cross, apart from any appropriation on our part via repentance and faith, was eternally forgiven? That is the question at stake here.

I believe Christ death on the cross actually took paid for the sins of sinners and they are eternally forgiven.

HP: Set that issue aside for a moment. Try and stay focused not on OSAS or not, but rather the atonement and the ramification of it. Certainly OSAS will invariably be addressed at some point in time, but for now, with as much as lieth within you, try to shelve that idea and concentrate if possible on the ramifications of the atonement. Fair enough?

Well, when you mentioned "eternal forgiveness of sins" I can help but infer eternal security, for they are interconnected.

Focus once again on the eternal aspect I am addresing. Were the sins that were forgiven on the cross eternally forgiven? You gave a response last time that I believe speaks to this direct question, but I would like to see, if possible, a direct answer to the question so there is no confusion as to what you believe.

Sins on the cross were eternally forgiven.

But even your question assume literal payment for sins, or it would be pointless.

 

[trustitl]

I do believe in the eternal security of what the Bible says:

"For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy" (Heb 10:14, TNIV).
QUOTE]

I find this to be an interesting verse for an OSAS advocate to turn to for I think it confirms just the opposite. I ask you to practice the patience that you say we all need as I try explain. raying:

"For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." (KJV)

A quick glance at this verse does seem to support the "once and for all" idea that unconditional eternal security teaches. How can one argue with "forever" right?

The "one sacrifice for sins for ever" is referring primarily to the sacrifice that was made. You and I participate in this "once and for all" sacrifice not with a once and for all act of faith, but in a continual reliance upon this sacrifice.

The writer has just contrasted the on going sacrifices of the old and lesser covenant with that of Christ :"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." This is a very important theme of this entire epistle.

7:27 "Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself."
9:12 "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."
Some try to extend the truth of once and for all to the effects of this "once and for all" sacrifice, but I don't think the writer of Hebrews was one of them. Clearly the context shows us that the meaning of "hapax" is "one time" and is referring to the sacrifice and not the faith of those for which it was given.

On the contrary, the context shows just the opposite: "Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering" 10:23. It is this very truth that makes the significance of gathering together worth noting. This is only one of the many warnings that the man who penned Hebrews gave. The book is full of them.

In another passage comparing the OT sacrifices with that of Christ we see:
"For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach." 13:11-13

And he finishes this thought with "For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come". 13:14 And we seek it by faith. The work of Christ is finished and we are blessed to be a part of this better covenant.

"But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end." 3:6

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCG: I believe Christ death on the cross actually took paid for the sins of sinners and they are eternally forgiven.

HP: Can any sin that has been eternally forgiven be brought up again? Can any sin that has been eternally forgiven be held against one ever again? Can anyone suffer a penalty for any sin that has already had the penalty paid? If any of these are true, forgiveness for individual sin could not have been eternal in scope, now could they have been?

Here is another line of argumentation I have heard on this list. Does God remember any sins that have been eternally forgiven two thousand years ago? If not, how can I be expected to know something that even God does not know about? Is it not absurd to preach that one needs to repent or that he is a sinner if in fact all his sins have been eternally forgiven before they were ever born? Are we thinking straight about the truth of Scripture and the realities of sin and forgiveness?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCG: HP, it seems like you're depending more on Reason than Revelation.

HP: It is not that I pit reason against revelation, nor do I rely more on reason than revelation. I believe God desires us to use the reasoning powers He instills within us to examine and enlighten what we see as our finite understanding of revelation. To do any less would be to think despite the abilities God grants to us to understand truth and revelation. The Holy Spirit utilizes truth to reveal truth no matter where it is found. He enlightens our understanding so we can understand revelation and interpret it in line with the intents of His written Word.

 

[BobRyan]

HP, are you willing to go with what Scripture says, or just content on logical propositions?

In keeping with this suggestion I propose a "change" to the wording "Literal payment" wording in OP since "literal payment" is not a term we find in the Bible.

I propose ... (and you knew this was coming)... ATONEMENT.

Although HP as framed the discussion for "reason and logic" in fact by holding to the Bible terms -- it becomes exegesis vs eisegesis on the subject of Atonement.

When we speak of Christ making a "substitutionary atoning sacrifice for our sin" we are using terms and concepts that God defines in Lev 16.

There we see that "Atonement" has BOTH a "Sacrifice" element (the Lord's goat slain -- the "Atoning Sacrifice" 1John 2:2 made on the Cross) AND also the Unique work of the High Priest (as we see in Lev 16) -- CHRIST our HIGH Priest as we see in Heb 8 and 9.

When HP speaks of "Literal payment... all sins forgiven" he is referencing the Bible concept of "completed Atonement" at the end of the year in Lev 16 -- a case in which there are NO MORE sins forgiven, no more sacrifices, no more "decisions" left.. The deal "is done ALL payment is made" no "accepting" no "changing" no "new sins to forgive" ... the story is over, all accounts are settled nor more fidgeting/deciding/payment applied etc.

The Calvinist model (and frankly the one that many Arminians use here as well) is one that fails to distinguish between the "Atoning Sacrifice" and the work of the High Priest in the entire process of "Atonement" -- therefore all accounts are settled at the cross such that even the lost sinner need not accept for his account is not "Changable" in any way.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[TCGreek]

I do believe in the eternal security of what the Bible says:

"For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy" (Heb 10:14, TNIV).
QUOTE]

I find this to be an interesting verse for an OSAS advocate to turn to for I think it confirms just the opposite. I ask you to practice the patience that you say we all need as I try explain. raying:

"For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." (KJV)

A quick glance at this verse does seem to support the "once and for all" idea that unconditional eternal security teaches. How can one argue with "forever" right?

The "one sacrifice for sins for ever" is referring primarily to the sacrifice that was made. You and I participate in this "once and for all" sacrifice not with a once and for all act of faith, but in a continual reliance upon this sacrifice.

The writer has just contrasted the on going sacrifices of the old and lesser covenant with that of Christ :"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." This is a very important theme of this entire epistle.

7:27 "Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself."
9:12 "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."
Some try to extend the truth of once and for all to the effects of this "once and for all" sacrifice, but I don't think the writer of Hebrews was one of them. Clearly the context shows us that the meaning of "hapax" is "one time" and is referring to the sacrifice and not the faith of those for which it was given.

On the contrary, the context shows just the opposite: "Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering" 10:23. It is this very truth that makes the significance of gathering together worth noting. This is only one of the many warnings that the man who penned Hebrews gave. The book is full of them.

In another passage comparing the OT sacrifices with that of Christ we see:
"For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach." 13:11-13

And he finishes this thought with "For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come". 13:14 And we seek it by faith. The work of Christ is finished and we are blessed to be a part of this better covenant.

"But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end." 3:6

Trustitl, I see your point, but I must disagree with you.

1. I do see a contrast, but notice that the beneficienaries of the sacrifice of Christ are those "he has made perfect forever." People he died for.

2. But I do see our human responsibility being called upon. Yes, we must hold to our confession of faith. That truth is riveted all throughout the NT Scriptures. No doubt about that!

3. But human response does not nullify the eternal security of believers.

 

[TCGreek]

HP: Can any sin that has been eternally forgiven be brought up again? Can any sin that has been eternally forgiven be held against one ever again? Can anyone suffer a penalty for any sin that has already had the penalty paid? If any of these are true, forgiveness for individual sin could not have been eternal in scope, now could they have been?

Here is another line of argumentation I have heard on this list. Does God remember any sins that have been eternally forgiven two thousand years ago? If not, how can I be expected to know something that even God does not know about? Is it not absurd to preach that one needs to repent or that he is a sinner if in fact all his sins have been eternally forgiven before they were ever born? Are we thinking straight about the truth of Scripture and the realities of sin and forgiveness?

HP, ala Luther, 'Here I stand."

1. Yes, the sacrifice of Christ on the cross has paid for the sins of sinners forgiven, sins past, present, and future.

2. As a Heaven Judge, God has judged believers already in his Son. That's a done deal (2 Cor 5:21).

3. Bu now God is deal with believers as a Heaven Father. There's a BIG difference (Heb 12:4-11).

4. As a Judge in salvation but as a Father in sanctification. That is what I see in Scripture and that is what I will accept.

5. Does Revelation always accord with Human Reason? No! But I must go with Revelation.

 

[TCGreek]

HP: It is not that I pit reason against revelation, nor do I rely more on reason than revelation. I believe God desires us to use the reasoning powers He instills within us to examine and enlighten what we see as our finite understanding of revelation. To do any less would be to think despite the abilities God grants to us to understand truth and revelation. The Holy Spirit utilizes truth to reveal truth no matter where it is found. He enlightens our understanding so we can understand revelation and interpret it in line with the intents of His written Word.

We have an accord on this one.

 

[TCGreek]

In keeping with this suggestion I propose a "change" to the wording "Literal payment" wording in OP since "literal payment" is not a term we find in the Bible.

I propose ... (and you knew this was coming)... ATONEMENT.

Although HP as framed the discussion for "reason and logic" in fact by holding to the Bible terms -- it becomes exegesis vs eisegesis on the subject of Atonement.

When we speak of Christ making a "substitutionary atoning sacrifice for our sin" we are using terms and concepts that God defines in Lev 16.

There we see that "Atonement" has BOTH a "Sacrifice" element (the Lord's goat slain -- the "Atoning Sacrifice" 1John 2:2 made on the Cross) AND also the Unique work of the High Priest (as we see in Lev 16) -- CHRIST our HIGH Priest as we see in Heb 8 and 9.

When HP speaks of "Literal payment... all sins forgiven" he is referencing the Bible concept of "completed Atonement" at the end of the year in Lev 16 -- a case in which there are NO MORE sins forgiven, no more sacrifices, no more "decisions" left.. The deal "is done ALL payment is made" no "accepting" no "changing" no "new sins to forgive" ... the story is over, all accounts are settled nor more fidgeting/deciding/payment applied etc.

Isn't that what we see in the BRIGHT LIGHTS of the NT Scriptures?

The Calvinist model (and frankly the one that many Arminians use here as well) is one that fails to distinguish between the "Atoning Sacrifice" and the work of the High Priest in the entire process of "Atonement" -- therefore all accounts are settled at the cross such that even the lost sinner need not accept for his account is not "Changable" in any way.

in Christ,

Bob

You'll have to make your statements much clearer, for I'm somewhat confused.