Logic and the Literal Payment Theory

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: At this point HP makes a good case for limited atonement….

HP: The point I am making, which I am certain you understand, is that when one states that they believe all sins are paid for literally on the cross while denying universalism, and that once forgiven always forgiven is invoked, ( an eternal payment applied once for all) one of necessity logically infers a limited atonement. When one denies a limited atonement and denies universalism, yet subscribes to a literal and eternal payment, one has affirmed a logical contradiction. Either one is logically forced to uphold Universalism or one is logically forced to accept a limited atonement if one believes a literal and eternal payment for sin has been made on the cross in the manner in which the literal payment theory clearly implies.

My point is not to pick on anyone, including DHK, but rather I am simply trying to get us to come to grips with the logical implications of our beliefs and to hopefully help us realize that to entertain absurdities within our theology does nothing for the furtherance of truth. If we can clearly see, as DHK does, that universalism is in error and that a limited atonement is in error, then we need to take the next step and examine the false conclusions the literal payment theory logically imbibes.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Let me try to simplify the stated absurdity I am addressing. It appears that many Baptists today reel from the Calvinistic notion of a limited atonement. They deny the atonement was for a select few and loudly affirm that the atonement was for all, not simply the elect. The problem is when they also affirm a ‘once for all’ ‘eternal payment’ has been applied to their sins at Calvary. If that was true, and Christ paid the sin debt for the whole world. How could anyone be lost? All would have had to have all their sins eternally paid for, would they not? In such a case, Universalism by necessity reigns.

Denying universalism, they state that not all will be saved, and somehow try and attach ones ‘free’ choice in either accepting or rejecting salvations offer, yet how does this separate them from the absurdity of having all sins literally paid for? Is not the rejection of Jesus Christ a sin? Was it not paid for on the cross? If not then all sins could not have been paid for, due to the fact that no payment was obviously applied to the sin of rejecting Christ. If we say that the only damning sin is the rejection of Jesus Christ, due to the fact that no payment was made for this sin, we would have to admit that not all sins are paid for, now would we not? Not only that, but then we would also have to conclude that since no payment was made for the rejection of Jesus Christ, that the first time one rejects an offer of salvation, he would of necessity be damned forever due to the fact such a one would have committed a sin for which no payment was made to cover for.

Anyway you slice it, the modern day Baptist or others with like beliefs, denying a limited atonement but affirming the literal eternal payment for sins on the cross, has created for themselves an illogical dilemma of great proportion which entertains clear absurdities. Certainly the Calvinist is in error with their limited atonement, but the modern day Baptist solution is less than a viable solution, and genders much logical confusion.

Again the only escape to the logical error I am pointing out is to reconsider what was accomplished on the cross. If we are to escape the clutches of necessitated error of any literal payment being made for all, and that eternally, on the cross, we are going to have to look outside the Calvinistic box of the ‘literal payment theory’ for viable solutions.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

If all was accomplished over two thousand years ago in a literal payment for sin, and that payment includes ever sin one has, is now committing, or ever will commit, and all was done eternally before man ever had a single choice to make, are we now to assume that one could undo which was eternally accomplished before we drew the first breath? How can one then logically conclude that the sins we commit, having been ETERNALLY paid for, could ever be held against anyone regardless of any decision or choice made to accept or reject anything in this life? Can a decision we make in this life disallow or set aside an eternal payment made by God Himself?? Who are we to thwart the Omnipotent hand of God in the eternal payment made for sin and that for all? How can a 'done deal,' finished over two thousand years before we were even born, be affected by any decision we will or could make today?

If Universalism does not reign, or if we do not desire for it to reign, we had better consider this issue of the ‘literal payment theory’ carefully.

 

[TCGreek]

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

Bob, you are forgetting one important point: the NT presented Christ as the antitype and so we shouldn't go to the OT to understand how to understand the atoning sacrifice of Christ.

I think that is a mistake.

We need to let the NT writers interpret the atoning sacrifice of Christ.

and they have.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCG:
We need to let the NT writers interpret the atoning sacrifice of Christ.

and they have.

HP: Can you explain to us what is the meaning of the atonement according to what you see as the ‘NT writer’s interpretation?’

 

[TCGreek]

That Christ through His blood propitiated the Father with His blood for sinners (Rom 3:25).

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCG: That Christ through His blood propitiated the Father with His blood for sinners (Rom 3:25).

HP: Can you explain to us what you interpret that to mean? Are the sins for all addressed, or only those of the elect? Did Christ literally pay the sin debt of the entire world or simply of the elect? Was the payment made eternal in scope or can it be revoked or simply not applied in some instances? How does our aceptance or rejection of the price paid affect the price being paid as an eternal price paid? Can something we do, or can anything we do, affect in any way that which has been eternally accomplished before we drew our first breath?

 

[TCGreek]

HP, I believe the Scriptures teach particular and definite atonement for those who would believe.

 

[billwald]

As the English fellow observed, the door to hell is only locked on the outside, not the inside. Anyone can leave. The person who rejects the notion that Jesus died for every person needs to explain why Hitler, Nero, Pol Pot . . . would want to be in Heaven?

 

[billwald]

Also, someone please explain the system for moneterising (sp?) individual sins. Each sin has a price tag?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCG: HP, I believe the Scriptures teach particular and definite atonement for those who would believe.

HP: What do you mean by that?

 

[TCGreek]

HP, I'm what they call a five point calvinist. Are you still willing to probe me?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCG: I'm what they call a five point calvinist. Are you still willing to probe me?

HP: I believe I have a handle on the beliefs of a five point Calvinist. Just the same. it never hurts to be open enough to allow your beliefs to be examined from other angles.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCG: That Christ through His blood propitiated the Father with His blood for sinners (Rom 3:25).

HP: Am I correct in assuming that what you really meant was ‘certain select sinner’ namely the elect and the elect only? Do you not deny that Christ died for the sins of the whole world as Scripture plainly states? 1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Explain to the list how Christ died for the whole world. What was accomplished on the part of ‘all sins,’ not simply the sins of the elect?

 

[TCGreek]

HP: Am I correct in assuming that what you really meant was ‘certain select sinner’ namely the elect and the elect only? Do you not deny that Christ died for the sins of the whole world as Scripture plainly states? 1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Explain to the list how Christ died for the whole world. What was accomplished on the part of ‘all sins,’ not simply the sins of the elect?

HP, I was not always a calvinist. In fact, in seminary I was taught to shun calvinism.

I became one because of my reading of Scripture, even before I ever read portions of the Calvin's Institutes. A reader would find many of what Calvin says contradictory.

Now regarding your question. If we are to understand the atonement of Christ actual and literal and not potential, we have some hermeneutical decisions to make.

How come everyone is not saved?

How come some are actually saved?

What does the Scripture mean by "all" and "world"?

If we understand "all" or "world" to refer to everyone human being who has ever lived, then how come some end up in hell, if we understand the atonement actual and not potential.

Does Scripture help us with how to understand "all" and "world" to avoid this conundrum?

Or do we resign to universalism?

Or to a potential atonement?

Those are the only other options.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: Do you not deny that Christ died for the sins of the whole world as Scripture plainly states? 1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Explain to the list how Christ died for the whole world. What was accomplished on the part of ‘all sins,’ not simply the sins of the elect?

HP: TCG, I do not see a direct answer to these simple questrions. Did I miss them? What does the phrase, 'but also for the sins of the whole world' mean?

 

[TCGreek]

HP, if you want an honest and straightforward debate, I'll gladly oblige. But if this is meant to be a cynical attack on the doctrines of grace, then I'll have no part of it.

I'm interested in what Scripture says.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCG: HP, if you want an honest and straightforward debate, I'll gladly oblige.

HP: Why would you believe anything else? I have asked some straight forward questions that deserve answers. Why not simply start there?

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said

Originally Posted by BobRyan
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.

Bob, you are forgetting one important point: the NT presented Christ as the antitype and so we shouldn't go to the OT to understand how to understand the atoning sacrifice of Christ.

I think that is a mistake.

We need to let the NT writers interpret the atoning sacrifice of Christ.

and they have.

Do you find the NT authors saying to their readers "forget what you find in scripture - just believe whatever we say now"??

OR do they use a "sola scriptura" model EVEN with NT saints that do not yet have a NT -- showing how doctrine being taught to NT saints is fully in line with OT and NOT by "bending the OT to line up with the NT" but by showing effectively that the Gospel IS in fact that New Covenant promise already given in the OT and when they mention to their readers something like "The Atoning Sacrifice" (1john 2:2) they rely on the fact that their readers ARLEADY know the concept from scripture SINCE "Moses is read each Sabbath in the Synagogues".

In other words SCRIPTURE already being read forms the CONTEXT for what they read in the NT letters. It is fine for the NT letters to expand and BUILD on that foundation of the Prophets -- but not to tear it down and "start over".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCG: But if this is meant to be a cynical attack on the doctrines of grace, then I'll have no part of it.

HP: Speaking once again of Scripture being of no private interpretation………

Here you try and line up grace with your ‘interpretation’ of what grace as if though by your statement alone you have the rights to the issue of grace. It is like saying that what you believe is automatically right and all other opinions concerning grace are automatically wrong. What kind of an attitude do you think that projects? One shockingly similar to the one Augustine showed I am afraid.

Instead of trying to manipulate the discussion by attempting to foist the high ground by merely begging the question, why don’t you first establish what these doctrines of grace are you speak of with evidence substantiated by Scripture. Only then can we have a real debate instead of merely assuming without proof, as you have indicated thus far, that your ideas are superior and automatically the only ones in accordance with truth without offering the least shred of evidence that they are.