Logic and the Literal Payment Theory

[trustitl]

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.

I believe in security of the believer. I am glad to see that you too believe in what I call "oneconditional eternal security" and that being faith.

I Peter 1:3 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."

Also, check the tense of "sanctified" or "made perfect"

Here is the World English Bible showing the present passive participle at work.

"For by one offering he has perfected forever those who are being sanctified."

In verse 10 the perfect participle is used while verse 14 uses the present passive participle. Does that make sense?

Let me know what you think of my take on this.

 

[TCGreek]

I believe in security of the believer. I am glad to see that you too believe in what I call "oneconditional eternal security" and that being faith.

I Peter 1:3 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."

Also, check the tense of "sanctified" or "made perfect"

Here is the World English Bible showing the present passive participle at work.

"For by one offering he has perfected forever those who are being sanctified."

In verse 10 the perfect participle is used while verse 14 uses the present passive participle. Does that make sense?

Let me know what you think of my take on this.

Yes, the perfect tenses of both vv. 10 and 14 have sealed the deal,

1. Verse 10 says that we have been sanctified, a done deal

2. And v. 14 says we have been made perfect, a done deal.

3. But this time "being sanctified" is put in the present tense against the perfect of v. 10, but only to show the process now.

We're in agreement. :thumbs:

 

[BobRyan]

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

If you read HP's first two posts you find a striking similarity between his "literal payment finished and paid off at the cross" and the Lev 16 concept of Day of Atonement once that day has ended - Sacrifice ended AND High Priests work ENDED.

This is the way many people view the cross today -- and it fits perfectly with what HP calls "Literal Payment".

The problem is - that people live and die and evangelism continues for the lost -- which is not supposed to happen at all - not one iota -- after the Day of Atonement. No new players no new decisions no need to repent, no promise of forgiveness -- nothing is left -- absolutely nothing when the Day of Atonement ends.

Only once in the year do you see the High Priest taking his unique role - and that is on the day of Atonement. When that is ended in the antitype service of Heb 8 -- when Christ is no longer functioning as High Priest -- when the moment comes as Rev 16 predicts when no work is done at all in the heavenly sanctuary -- the entire process is ended. No new evangelism, no promises for forgiveness, no interecession by our "ONE Mediator" in His role as High Priest -- all that will be over. Debt's paid -- cases resolved, mediation complete. Ended.


In Christ,

Bob
__________________

 

[TCGreek]

If you read HP's first two posts you find a striking similarity between his "literal payment finished and paid off at the cross" and the Lev 16 concept of Day of Atonement once that day has ended - Sacrifice ended AND High Priests work ENDED.

This is the way many people view the cross today -- and it fits perfectly with what HP calls "Literal Payment".

The problem is - that people live and die and evangelism continues for the lost -- which is not supposed to happen at all - not one iota -- after the Day of Atonement. No new players no new decisions no need to repent, no promise of forgiveness -- nothing is left -- absolutely nothing when the Day of Atonement ends.

Only once in the year do you see the High Priest taking his unique role - and that is on the day of Atonement. When that is ended in the antitype service of Heb 8 -- when Christ is no longer functioning as High Priest -- when the moment comes as Rev 16 predicts when no work is done at all in the heavenly sanctuary -- the entire process is ended. No new evangelism, no promises for forgiveness, no interecession by our "ONE Mediator" in His role as High Priest -- all that will be over. Debt's paid -- cases resolved, mediation complete. Ended.


In Christ,

Bob
__________________

Then what is the meaning of the atonement for today?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

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

HP: As if the revelation you say is in Scripture was of your private interpretation. Show us that the way you are interpreting it is correct. What evidence do you have other than you saying, 'The way I understand the revelation is correct?' When the shoe cobbler tells us that he is the best in town, do his words alone establish it as fact?

 

[TCGreek]

HP: As if the revelation you say is in Scripture was of your private interpretation. Show us that the way you are interpreting it is correct. What evidence do you have other than you saying, 'The way I understand the revelation is correct?' When the shoe cobbler tells us that he is the best in town, do his words alone establish it as fact?

HP, my understanding "your private interpretation" is somewhat different than yours, if it's 2 Pet 1:20 you have in mind.

At any rate, Jesus said that he was going to give his life as a ransom for many (Matt 20:28).

He did just that, or Paul wouldn't have been able to say:

"9Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! 10For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation." (Rom 5:9-11, TNIV).

The atonement of Christ did accomplish what it was set out to accomplish. There's nothing potential about it, for it is actual.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCG: Jesus said that he was going to give his life as a ransom for many (Matt 20:28).

HP: Who would not agree with that? That verse certainly does not lend support to a literal payment theory in the least.

TCG: He did just that, or Paul wouldn't have been able to say:

"9Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! 10For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation." (Rom 5:9-11, TNIV).

HP: Neither does this verse give support to a literal payment. If you believe otherwise, show us the particular words that support it.

TCG: The atonement of Christ did accomplish what it was set out to accomplish. There's nothing potential about it, for it is actual.

HP: You beg the question TCG. Certainly it ‘actually accomplished’ what it set out to accomplish. What you have not shown by any verse is support for the literal payment theory. What you have not shown is that it was a literal payment as you suppose.

At some point in time I would hope that you can see that the notions you espouse are not simply revelation, but rather your idea of revelation, one that I believe is in clear error. I would hope that you come to realize that you need other support for your theory if you expect others to believe it as true. I say it clearly entertains absurdities, one of which is the absurd notion that the sins one commits subsequent to salvation are already forgiven. No sin is forgiven apart from repentance. “Unless ye repent ye shall all likewise perish.” Jesus did not come preaching that all have repented on the cross, neither did He come preaching a literal payment for sins had or would be made. Jesus came preaching that if anyone desired to have eternal life there was something they would have to do before it would be possible, i.e., repent and exercise faith in Him.

You would have us to believe that all was accomplished on the cross. Where did Jesus teach any such thing? Certainly His part, the atonement which makes salvation possible was accomplished in full, but the conditions on our part must be fulfilled, just as He commanded, if salvations atonement is to be made effective in our lives. That is the truth set forth by Scripture, not some man-made literal payment theory.

 

[DHK]

HP: As if the revelation you say is in Scripture was of your private interpretation. Show us that the way you are interpreting it is correct. What evidence do you have other than you saying, 'The way I understand the revelation is correct?' When the shoe cobbler tells us that he is the best in town, do his words alone establish it as fact?

As an aside here, I believe that this concept of "private interpretation" must be clearly understood. It is accusation of the RCC that the Baptists have their own "private interpretation" because they believe in sola scriptura. They hotly deny the doctrine of sola scriptura. But in reality the opposite is true. The Catholics are the ones that have a "private interpretation" of the Scriputes that is forced upon all, and deny the Biblical teaching of sola scriptura. Let's look at Scripture:

2 Peter 1:19-21 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The context is set for us in verses 16-18. There Peter describes one of the greatest experiences of his lifetime--the transfiguration on the mount, where he saw Jesus transfigured before him, and the appearance of Elijah and Moses. What a glorious experience it was; one that he would never forget. Only three people in all the world would ever see that experience or witness something like that. Peter would treasure it forever. He saw the glory of God. It went against all his own logic: for no man can see God and live, and yet Peter in his experience had done this very thing. This was his experience.

Now in verse 19, he gives a comparison to that great mountaintop experience. He says: "We have a more sure word of prophecy." He is saying that we have something even greater than the greatest experience a man can ever have, and that is the Word of God. The Word of God is greater than experience. It is the foundation of all that we have. It surpasses all experience. It is the foundation of all or our beliefs. It is even greater than what I say on the Mount of Transfiguration.
--We have a more sure word of prophecy. That more sure word of prophecy will continue until the canon is closed. For he mentions until the coming of Christ. He is not suggesting that revelation will continue until then, but Peter knows that the NT revelation is not finished yet, and does not know when it will be finished. He does know that it will be finished before the coming of Christ. As it was it was finished after his death, but before the end of the first century.

In verse 20 he writes that no prophecy of the Scipture is of private interpretation.
The private interpretation refers to an organization. That is the primary meaning. In other words the church at Ephesus, for example, could not claim that their interpretation was correct and the interpretation of the church at Philippi was wrong. It was not referring to individuals but to organizations. Individuals depended upon their leaders.

Thus today the RCC has a private interpretation of the Bible where every individual must conform to the catechism, and not only that, they must conform to the interpretation of the priest's reading of the Bible. They are not allowed to interpret it on their own. Only the priest is allowed to interpret it according to the dictates of the Magesterium. There is no sola scriptura. There is no need therefore for personal study of the Bible, which goes against such Scripture as "Study to show yourself approved unto God," "Search the Scriptures," etc.

Examples of "Private Interpretation":
1 Timothy 4:1-3 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

--Forbidding to marry is a doctrine of demons. It is a command given by the Catholic Church to their priests. It is a private interpretation.
--The same goes for "abstaining from 'foods'" which the Old English word "meats" means. The SDA are primarily vegetarians and command their adherents to abstain from meat. It is a religious command, not one given out of preference. Thus it becomes a doctrine of demons.
The truth is you can eat anything you want, have any kind of diet you want. It is your choice if you want to be a vegetarian or not. But if you belong to a religious organization where they claim you, according to the Bible, must be a vegetarian, then that is a doctrine of demons. It is a private interpetation of that church, which is unbiblical.
The RCC has private interpretations concerning many unbiblical doctrines: indulgences, purgatory, the immaculate conception, the assumption, etc. These are not even found in the Bible, though the RCC may claim they are.

 

[TCGreek]

HP: Who would not agree with that? That verse certainly does not lend support to a literal payment theory in the least.

I have no reason to doubt the words of Jesus.

"just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

If Jesus said he was going to ransom many by the giving of his life, when he gave his life, he actually ransomed many.

I know of no other way to understand his words.

HP: Neither does this verse give support to a literal payment. If you believe otherwise, show us the particular words that support it.

"9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! 10 For if, while we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11 Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation."

We have been justified and reconciled are both aorist passives in the Greek, denoting a done deal for believers.

HP: You beg the question TCG. Certainly it ‘actually accomplished’ what it set out to accomplish. What you have not shown by any verse is support for the literal payment theory. What you have not shown is that it was a literal payment as you suppose.

Are you looking for a verse that will say: The death of Christ was an actual literal payment for sins?

Romans 3:21-26 happens to be my most meaningful theological text. Let me offer a few lines:

"24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith" (ESV).

By giving his life on the cross, Christ actually propitiated the Father, and that is why, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Rom 8:1).

At some point in time I would hope that you can see that the notions you espouse are not simply revelation, but rather your idea of revelation, one that I believe is in clear error. I would hope that you come to realize that you need other support for your theory if you expect others to believe it as true. I say it clearly entertains absurdities, one of which is the absurd notion that the sins one commits subsequent to salvation are already forgiven. No sin is forgiven apart from repentance. “Unless ye repent ye shall all likewise perish.” Jesus did not come preaching that all have repented on the cross, neither did He come preaching a literal payment for sins had or would be made. Jesus came preaching that if anyone desired to have eternal life there was something they would have to do before it would be possible, i.e., repent and exercise faith in Him.

As a believer, for whom Christ died, my sins are all paid for in full, past, present and future.

The Father no long deals with me as a Judge but as a Loving Father (Heb 12:4-11).

There's a BIG difference by friend.

I'll encourage you to read Luke 13:3, 5 in context.

I cannot improve on these words that have been my anchor in the time of doubt:

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

You would have us to believe that all was accomplished on the cross. Where did Jesus teach any such thing? Certainly His part, the atonement which makes salvation possible was accomplished in full, but the conditions on our part must be fulfilled, just as He commanded, if salvations atonement is to be made effective in our lives. That is the truth set forth by Scripture, not some man-made literal payment theory.

In his own words Jesus said that he was laying down his life for his sheep. Not if they become his sheep, but because they are already his sheep, he lays down his life for them:

""I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep."

"25 Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father's name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all ; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one."

The above verses from John 10 are self-explanatory.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Thus today the RCC has a private interpretation of the Bible where every individual must conform to the catechism, and not only that, they must conform to the interpretation of the priest's reading of the Bible. They are not allowed to interpret it on their own. Only the priest is allowed to interpret it according to the dictates of the Magesterium. There is no sola scriptura. There is no need therefore for personal study of the Bible, which goes against such Scripture as "Study to show yourself approved unto God," "Search the Scriptures," etc.

HP: Can we be open minded for a moment and analyze and apply fairly what you have said? What is the difference between the issues you mention concerning the RCC and many of the Baptist Churches in matters such as OSAS or the notion of the literal payment theory? Take for instance the posts by TCGreek. When pressed for evidence of the literal payment theory he responds with comments stating that he is following ‘revelation in Scripture,’ chiding others as if though they are just flying by the seat of philosophy etc. It as if though he alone has the ability to interpret the Word of God, and all others need to simply fall lock step in line with his interpretation. How is this any different than what you point out about the RCC? What I hear is, ‘Throw God given reasoning to the wind and all else that goes against our private interpretation, for we alone have the direct revelation from God concerning the meaning of Scripture.’

What are we not doing on this list at times that you seem to fault the RCC for? Is not the cry of ‘sola Scriptura’ often just another way of repeating what I have said above, amounting to mere sophistic argumentation that one can wield at will against their opponent when clear absurdities in our ideas are brought to light that they do not wish to look at honestly and fairly?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim

HP: Who would not agree with that? That verse certainly does not lend support to a literal payment theory in the least.

TCG: I have no reason to doubt the words of Jesus.

"just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

If Jesus said he was going to ransom many by the giving of his life, when he gave his life, he actually ransomed many.

HP: Where does it say that the ransom accomplished on the cross is the sum total of all conditions that must take place in order for the salvation of some to be effective? “Unless ye repent ye shall all likewise perish,”

Where does it say that there are no conditions for man to comply with in order to part of those ‘many’ that are to be ransomed? I have certainly set forth Scriptures that do say there are conditions that apply. I certainly do not doubt the words of Jesus, but I certainly have doubt in believing your interpretation of His words supporting a literal payment theory.

Your interpretation of His words does not automatically necessitate ‘the truth’ has been set forth concerning His words. The same goes for my interpretation. We need to examine what we believe is ‘revelation’ in light of every avenue of discerning truth God gives to man. That would incorporate not only Scripture but the utilization sound logic and reasoning, matters of fact, first truths of reason, immutable truths of justice, and even nature at times.




Quote:

HP: Neither does this verse give support to a literal payment. If you believe otherwise, show us the particular words that support it.

TCG: "9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! 10 For if, while we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11 Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation."

We have been justified and reconciled are both aorist passives in the Greek, denoting a done deal for believers.

HP: There you go with your interpretation of the passage, which again does not establish a done deal in the sense of the abolition of stated conditions and the requirement to persevere unto the end. No such hard and fast rule can be placed upon the mere coining of the words used in common parlance as you seem to try and force the text into compliance to your rigid and necessitated structure. Language is not a science, but is a means where by one communicates ideas to another, often circumventing any such rules such as you are trying to force up[on the text. I might say, ‘I have made my choice forever,’ but that does not negate the possibility of changing that choice at some later date. When Scripture indicates that we have been justified or reconciled, that in no way disallows for the casting away of ones first faith, and it is by faith that we stand or fall in this present world. Many clear Scriptures of the possibility of having ones forgiveness revoked, making shipwreck of the faith, casting away of ones faith, or turning from Christ and following after Satan, have been set forth that would negate any such hard and fast rule of your own private interpretation to be placed upon the verse.

TCG: By giving his life on the cross, Christ actually propitiated the Father, and that is why, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Rom 8:1).

HP: You exhibit one certain way to eliminate the conditions found in Scripture. Simply cut out the last half of the verse as you did concerning Rom. 8:1..."who walk not after the flesh but the Spirit."

TCG: As a believer, for whom Christ died, my sins are all paid for in full, past, present and future.

HP: Here you fail to show one verse that states any such thing. You simply state your dogma as if it is ‘divine revelation.’ Where is the Scriptural evidence of your presupposition concerning future acts of sin and disobedience?

TCG: The Father no long deals with me as a Judge but as a Loving Father (Heb 12:4-11).

HP: The notion that God deals with His children as a father is indeed true, but that does not negate the fact that He will also be our Judge. My hope is that I will have an Advocate, Jesus Christ the Righteous on that day. You are going to need His services as well.

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

HP: Heb 10:14 “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.“ Who disagrees with that? That simply states that those that are sanctified are in no need of any further offering. It was completed once for all. Again, that does NOT negate the possibility of rejecting ones faith, turning from ones faith, casting away ones faith, leaving ones first love, returning to ones old life of pleasure as a dog returns to his vomit.

 

[TCGreek]

HP: Where does it say that the ransom accomplished on the cross is the sum total of all conditions that must take place in order for the salvation of some to be effective? “Unless ye repent ye shall all likewise perish,”

Maybe you should use Eph 2:8 instead.

HP, let's deal with what a text says. How one appropriate the blood is another issue.

I thought we were addressing the literal atonement of Messiah.

Where does it say that there are no conditions for man to comply with in order to part of those ‘many’ that are to be ransomed? I have certainly set forth Scriptures that do say there are conditions that apply. I certainly do not doubt the words of Jesus, but I certainly have doubt in believing your interpretation of His words supporting a literal payment theory.

Again, my effort was only to demonstrate from Scripture that the atonement was actual.

Your interpretation of His words does not automatically necessitate ‘the truth’ has been set forth concerning His words. The same goes for my interpretation. We need to examine what we believe is ‘revelation’ in light of every avenue of discerning truth God gives to man. That would incorporate not only Scripture but the utilization sound logic and reasoning, matters of fact, first truths of reason, immutable truths of justice, and even nature at times.

Examing Scripture to see the truths that are there, is what I'm about. I hope you too.

Quote:

HP: Neither does this verse give support to a literal payment. If you believe otherwise, show us the particular words that support it.

What does it mean then?

HP: There you go with your interpretation of the passage, which again does not establish a done deal in the sense of the abolition of stated conditions and the requirement to persevere unto the end. No such hard and fast rule can be placed upon the mere coining of the words used in common parlance as you seem to try and force the text into compliance to your rigid and necessitated structure. Language is not a science, but is a means where by one communicates ideas to another, often circumventing any such rules such as you are trying to force up[on the text. I might say, ‘I have made my choice forever,’ but that does not negate the possibility of changing that choice at some later date. When Scripture indicates that we have been justified or reconciled, that in no way disallows for the casting away of ones first faith, and it is by faith that we stand or fall in this present world. Many clear Scriptures of the possibility of having ones forgiveness revoked, making shipwreck of the faith, casting away of ones faith, or turning from Christ and following after Satan, have been set forth that would negate any such hard and fast rule of your own private interpretation to be placed upon the verse.

You may not see Scripture teaching the eternal security of the believer, but I do.

Those who cast away their faith never belonged to Christ (Matt 7:21ff). Jesus said "I never knew you" to religious people.

HP: You exhibit one certain way to eliminate the conditions found in Scripture. Simply cut out the last half of the verse as you did concerning Rom. 8:1..."who walk not after the flesh but the Spirit."

I quoted the TNIV at Rom 8:1; I'm sorry I didn't make that obvious.

HP: Here you fail to show one verse that states any such thing. You simply state your dogma as if it is ‘divine revelation.’ Where is the Scriptural evidence of your presupposition concerning future acts of sin and disobedience?

See Heb 10:14.

HP: The notion that God deals with His children as a father is indeed true, but that does not negate the fact that He will also be our Judge. My hope is that I will have an Advocate, Jesus Christ the Righteous on that day. You are going to need His services as well.

I'm not looking forward to a judgment to determine my salvation. That has been settled in Christ (Rom 8:1).

My only judgment is in reference to my rewards (1 Cor 3:10-15; 2 Cor 5:10).

HP: Heb 10:14 “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.“ Who disagrees with that? That simply states that those that are sanctified are in no need of any further offering. It was completed once for all. Again, that does NOT negate the possibility of rejecting ones faith, turning from ones faith, casting away ones faith, leaving ones first love, returning to ones old life of pleasure as a dog returns to his vomit.

HP, I majored in NT Greek in seminary, and I do not apologize for using it in my ministry or in debating.

In the Greek the object of "perfecting" are "those who are being sanctified," and Christ has done that through the "one sacrifice."

So your rearranging of the verse doesn't fit the Greek text.

Even the KJV doesn't support your view:

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

The KJV is on target. :thumbs:

Believers are the ones who are perfected forever not a plan.

 

[trustitl]

.
I quoted the TNIV at Rom 8:1

Not a good choice if you ask me. And since you didn't ask...

.
I'm not looking forward to a judgment to determine my salvation. That has been settled in Christ (Rom 8:1).Even the KJV doesn't support your view:

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

The KJV is on target. :thumbs:

Believers are the ones who are perfected forever not a plan.

I would agree that a believer does not look to a day of judgement that will determine his salvation. However, I still think that you are missing the mark on the fact that a believer is one who IS believing, not someone who believed on some day in his personal history. This verse does not support once believing, it says "one offering" perfects forever those who are believers.

Believers are sanctified. Believing once, or every now and then, does not get one a ticket to heaven nor does it perfect them forever. Those who are sanctified are those who are believers and as the KJV says(and sadly left out in the NIV) in Romans 8:1 "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit".

God is faithful, but he will not avail to unfaithful men. There is no inexorable law that must continue to work regardless of the conduct of those who received words from Paul such as "he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ". These types of encouragements are given to those who Paul had reason to say them to.

In the case of the Phillipians it was because they were standing fast with Paul in his defense of the gospel in the face of grave danger. Nowhere does Paul give a weak OSAS "well I know you are a bunch of sinners, and you will never stop sinning" but He who began a good work in you will keep you saved no matter how you live.

Resorting to "well then they were never saved" does an injustice to the multitude of warnings and admonitions in scripture.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TrustitL: God is faithful, but he will not avail to unfaithful men. There is no inexorable law that must continue to work regardless of the conduct of those who received words from Paul such as "he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ". These types of encouragements are given to those who Paul had reason to say them to.

….. Nowhere does Paul give a weak OSAS "well I know you are a bunch of sinners, and you will never stop sinning" but He who began a good work in you will keep you saved no matter how you live.

HP: Amen! Excellent truths you clearly set forth.:thumbs: If we can simply focus on truths such as these, our disagreements over cliché’s will wax thin and disappear.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCG: HP, I majored in NT Greek in seminary, and I do not apologize for using it in my ministry or in debating.

HP: I suppose I could say that I have tried to major in a common sense approach guided by the Holy Spirit, trying always to stay within common parlance and the normal usage of language as common men speak and write. GK scholarship is not necessarily a great tool to wield when in discussion of a book written in common parlance for the common man utilizing the common vernacular of the day as a means to communicate ideas and concepts, especially to the destruction or overlooking of all other means of understanding Scriptural truths; like God-instilled logic, matters of fact, intuitive principles of justice, and lessons taught to us by God through nature. Scripture is not written as a book to force upon it rigid rules applied to language used as a means to prop up ones presuppositions when convenient, again when in clear opposition of God-instilled logic, etc. Our duty is not simply to approach the written Word by some structured sense of the usage of a verb tense, overlooking or ignoring the way language often employs the use and tense of parts of speech in communicating ideas and concepts in manners inconsistent with any such structure formula. Sentences utilizing certain particular parts of speech OFTEN can be understood in different senses………. unless one has a favorite presupposition that needs only one sense to be utilized so as to throw all support singularly behind ones particular dogma.

TCG: Again, my effort was only to demonstrate from Scripture that the atonement was actual.

HP: Who in the world would say that the atonement was not actual??? Certainly it was actual. Certainly it was literal! Again, you simply skirt the real issues at stake, by assuming without proof or evidence that the atonement was a forensic proceeding, as the literal payment theory, to which you obviously subscribe, purports.

I man not being condescending in asking you the following question, I am just curious. Did the seminary you went to not introduce you to different theories on the atonement? Have you never hear or read about the ‘literal payment theory’ in your studies? Do you not understand that this theory is peculiar to a system of thought know the world over as being ‘Calvinistic?’

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Just a note brought to my mind in a succinctly fashion by TrustitL. Scripture is replete with assurances of everlasting and eternal security, but always coupled with a holy life of obedience. It is the notion that divorces obedience from security that is contrary to the Word of God. It is the notion that one can be secure in Christ while in active commission of known sin, and remain unrepentant of it until the end and still be found in Christ that is contrary to God’s Word.

I have heard it stated by my godly father that it seemed to him that the Arminaian does not want the security and the Calvinist doesn’t at least appear (by stated dogmas and positions) to desire the holiness required. What we need is to be seekers first of obedience, and the security will without fail be revealed to our hearts and minds by the Holy Spirit.

Salvations security is no way designed to grant assurance of ones final standing before God while in a state of disobedience and known sin. Of a truth, there is a false sense of security that is ever so popular in today’s church circles. That is not to diminish or take away from the right and true sense of security God has for the true believer walking in the light. “If we walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.” Jas 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

1Jo 3:19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.
20 ¶ For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God.
22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

 

[TCGreek]

Not a good choice if you ask me. And since you didn't ask...

Trustitl, at Rom 8:1 we're dealing with matters of textual criticism.

But let's say I were to go with the KJV rendering, the question must be asked, Is Paul dealing with a condition or a consequence of what it means "Now no more condemnation for those who are in Christ"?

I would agree that a believer does not look to a day of judgement that will determine his salvation. However, I still think that you are missing the mark on the fact that a believer is one who IS believing, not someone who believed on some day in his personal history. This verse does not support once believing, it says "one offering" perfects forever those who are believers.

Again, the object of "he has perfected" are "those who are being sanctified."

It doesn't matter how much I try, the meaning of this verse is clear to me: by the one sacrife of Jesus he as perfected believers who are being sanctified.

This is from salvation to sanctification and then glorification. I see them all in that verse.

Believers are sanctified. Believing once, or every now and then, does not get one a ticket to heaven nor does it perfect them forever. Those who are sanctified are those who are believers and as the KJV says(and sadly left out in the NIV) in Romans 8:1 "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit".

If you favor the KJV then so be it, but until you can provide textual evidence why the KJV's rendering is to be preferred, I consider your statement "sadly left out in the NIV" a moot point.

God is faithful, but he will not avail to unfaithful men. There is no inexorable law that must continue to work regardless of the conduct of those who received words from Paul such as "he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ". These types of encouragements are given to those who Paul had reason to say them to.

In the case of the Phillipians it was because they were standing fast with Paul in his defense of the gospel in the face of grave danger. Nowhere does Paul give a weak OSAS "well I know you are a bunch of sinners, and you will never stop sinning" but He who began a good work in you will keep you saved no matter how you live.

Resorting to "well then they were never saved" does an injustice to the multitude of warnings and admonitions in scripture.

I believe in the eternal security of the believer and I do take the admonitions seriously.

 

[TCGreek]

HP: I suppose I could say that I have tried to major in a common sense approach guided by the Holy Spirit, trying always to stay within common parlance and the normal usage of language as common men speak and write. GK scholarship is not necessarily a great tool to wield when in discussion of a book written in common parlance for the common man utilizing the common vernacular of the day as a means to communicate ideas and concepts, especially to the destruction or overlooking of all other means of understanding Scriptural truths; like God-instilled logic, matters of fact, intuitive principles of justice, and lessons taught to us by God through nature. Scripture is not written as a book to force upon it rigid rules applied to language used as a means to prop up ones presuppositions when convenient, again when in clear opposition of God-instilled logic, etc. Our duty is not simply to approach the written Word by some structured sense of the usage of a verb tense, overlooking or ignoring the way language often employs the use and tense of parts of speech in communicating ideas and concepts in manners inconsistent with any such structure formula. Sentences utilizing certain particular parts of speech OFTEN can be understood in different senses………. unless one has a favorite presupposition that needs only one sense to be utilized so as to throw all support singularly behind ones particular dogma.

HP, learning NT Greek for me is a blessing and a tool to understand and do ministry better.

I wish not to defend myself on the matter. Rarely do I appeal to the Greek in a debate here on BB. I only do so when I think a point would be served better by the use of it.

Yes, I believe the Holy Spirit is our resident teacher, but I believe we have a responsibility to do our best as workers who need not be ashamed, correctly handling the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15).

I have no aversion to the biblical languages.

HP: Who in the world would say that the atonement was not actual??? Certainly it was actual. Certainly it was literal! Again, you simply skirt the real issues at stake, by assuming without proof or evidence that the atonement was a forensic proceeding, as the literal payment theory, to which you obviously subscribe, purports.

we have both approached this debate with obvious biases. I'm sorry that you didn't see my efforts as substantial proof for what I subscribe to.

I man not being condescending in asking you the following question, I am just curious. Did the seminary you went to not introduce you to different theories on the atonement? Have you never hear or read about the ‘literal payment theory’ in your studies? Do you not understand that this theory is peculiar to a system of thought know the world over as being ‘Calvinistic?’

If your efforts were aimed at Calvinism, then you should have made that known from the outset.

 

[BobRyan]

Then what is the meaning of the atonement for today?

Atonement has the meaning God gave it in Lev 16 in His presentation of the "Day of Atonement".

Atonement includes BOTH the "Atoning Sacrifice" (1John 2:2 NIV) of Lev 16:15 AND the Lev 16 High Priestly work of Christ that we see in Heb 8 and 9 post Cross.

Just no way to turn away from what God specified and that means that the sacrifice of atonement is being administered by Christ for individuals today -- it also means that falling from Grace and being severed from Christ is still very possible for the believer as Paul argues in Gal 5.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

If I could get us back to the key points of the OP

The notion of the literal payment (read: blood of Christ applied to every account in completed Atonement) 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 (read: Blood of Christ applied to the account of every sinner in completed atonement) 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 (by every sinner in all of time at the cross) is eternal in nature. Let us examine the logic implications of such a belief.

First, if all

1. sins are literally and eteranlly paid for at the cross,
2. the debt of sin (for each sinner) would have been eternally set aside.

3. 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?

At this point HP makes a good case for limited atonement IF one ignores Lev 16 and supposes that "The Atoning Sacrifice" 1John 2:2 made at the cross ALSO included the High Priestly work of Christ not begun until the Heb 8 event and that innexplicably both the sacrifice on the cross AND the ministry of the High-Priest post cross - all ended at the cross.

HP

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?

Again -- this assumes the "completed atonment of BOTH the work of sacrifice AND the work of High Priest ended at the cross" that is the only way to get to "no sin exists".

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?

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.