Sins Are Remitted When?

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

When are ones sins remitted and forgiven? Where they remitted at the cross two thousand years ago, at the point one ‘gets saved,’ or when?

 

[steaver]

Propitiation was made for all mankind at the cross of Jesus Christ.(1Jo 2:2)

That propitiation is applied to whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord. Through the operation of faith.(Jo 3, Ro 10, just to name two)

:jesus:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: Propitiation was made for all mankind at the cross of Jesus Christ.(1Jo 2:2)

That propitiation is applied to whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord. Through the operation of faith.(Jo 3, Ro 10, just to name two)

HP: So are you saying that there was no literal payment for individual sins accomplished at the cross?

 

[steaver]

HP: So are you saying that there was no literal payment for individual sins accomplished at the cross?

You will have to elaborate.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver, are you saying that in all honesty you are ignorant of the implications of the theory well known throughout theological circles for hundred of years as the 'literal payment theory?'

 

[steaver]

Steaver, are you saying that in all honesty you are ignorant of the implications of the theory well known throughout theological circles for hundred of years as the 'literal payment theory?'

Yes, forgive me. I can go study it or you could just give the jist of it since you know it so well.

 

[sag38]

I have an MDiv, have been a Christian for almost 40 years, and I have never heard of the "literal payment" theory. Although, I believe that Jesus literally payed for my sin on the cross and that's no theory. It's a fact.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Saggy women: I have an MDiv

HP: I would ask for some of my money back if the Div is in fact a theological degree. I fully understand it is not your fault your education seemingly lacking in an explanation of it. I am not saying this personally in any way. One can only be expected to learn concerning those issues what they are properly informed of.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

The literal payment theory basically theorizes that individual sins, past present and future, have been paid for in full, literally, as one might expect to be the case in a forensic proceeding, at the cross. It is a well know theory concerning the atonement that lies at the foundation of the system of theology know the world over as Calvinsim.

I am certain there are others that could explain it much better than I do. It is inculcated in the thoughts of many on this board.

 

[Dan Edwin]

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone (Hebrews 2:9).

Gal 4:5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. (Colossians 2:14)

Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, (Romans 7:4a).

where there is no law there is no transgression (Romans 4:15b).

There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. (Romans 8:1)

For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace. (Romans 6:14)

Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? (Romans 7:1)

as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus (by the Holy Ghost) were baptized into His death? (Romans 6:3).

For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. (Colossians 3:3)

What are these saying? Those under the authority of the Law were under the Law for as long as they were alive. Christ died as a final sacrifice for sins (once for all) to redeem us from the curse of the Law by being made a curse for us.

Believers who repented were baptized with water in the name of Jesus Christ to have past sins forgiven by the grace of God for their faith, and were then baptized into Jesus Christ and His death by the Holy Ghost to be saved by being quickened with the Spirit and raised up together with Christ.

Jesus Christ did not pay for our sins; He paid the penalty for our sins (the curse of the Mosaic Law), by taking the curse upon Him self when He died on the tree. This is why there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus who walk with the Spirit.

This did several things for us. We are redeemed from the curse of the Law for our faith; He took the Law out of the way by fulfilling the ordiances on sacrifices and cleansing of sin; and by tasting death for every man, those quickened together with His Spirit have died with Him by being joined together with Him into His death. Death has no sting for those born of the Spirit because it is appointed for man to die one time, and born again believers were joined with Jesus Christ into His death. For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God (Colossians 3:3). We are reconciled to God and born of the Spirit by being quickened together with His Spirit when forgiven of all trespasses.

God bless

 

[steaver]

The literal payment theory basically theorizes that individual sins, past present and future, have been paid for in full, literally, as one might expect to be the case in a forensic proceeding, at the cross. It is a well know theory concerning the atonement that lies at the foundation of the system of theology know the world over as Calvinsim.

If this theory suggest that all sins are forgiven at the cross for every person apart from faith in Christ, then no I do not believe in the "literal payment theory".

The atonement for the whole world has been made at the cross, but the atonement is of none effect to those who reject it. The atonement is offered to whosoever will believe on Jesus Christ.

Once the atonement has been imputed to the believer, this atonement covers all sin for the new creature, this is past, present and future sin. All means all.

 

[Marcia]

The literal payment theory basically theorizes that individual sins, past present and future, have been paid for in full, literally, as one might expect to be the case in a forensic proceeding, at the cross. It is a well know theory concerning the atonement that lies at the foundation of the system of theology know the world over as Calvinsim.

I am certain there are others that could explain it much better than I do. It is inculcated in the thoughts of many on this board.

HP, you attributed a quote from sag38 to Saggy Woman. They are not the same person.

I've been to seminary and had soteriology and never heard of this theory either. Maybe because my seminary is not Calvinistic? Are you saying this is a doctrine from Calvin?

 

[DHK]

The literal payment theory basically theorizes that individual sins, past present and future, have been paid for in full, literally, as one might expect to be the case in a forensic proceeding, at the cross. It is a well know theory concerning the atonement that lies at the foundation of the system of theology know the world over as Calvinsim.

I am certain there are others that could explain it much better than I do. It is inculcated in the thoughts of many on this board.

Was Horatio Spafford familiar with it:

Though Satan should buffet, though trials should come,
Let this blest assurance control,
That Christ has regarded my helpless estate,
And hath shed His own blood for my soul.


Refrain


My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!
My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more,
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!

It is well, It is well with my soul.
What did Spafford think of this "literal payment theory"?


His sin paid, not in part but the full--all of it.

It was nailed to the cross. He says he bears it no more? Why? It has all been forgiven. Why again?
"He hath shed his own blood for my soul."



There is a fascinating story behind this song.
It is the only hymn that Spafford ever wrote.



http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/i/t/i/itiswell.htm

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marcia: HP, you attributed a quote from sag38 to Saggy Woman. They are not the same person.

HP: My apologies to the list and to Saggy Woman and sag38. I suppose there is simply too much sagging going on around here. :laugh:

Marcia: I've been to seminary and had soteriology and never heard of this theory either. Maybe because my seminary is not Calvinistic? Are you saying this is a doctrine from Calvin?

HP: If I were a guessing man, having never been to a seminary, the problem is that most teach what they believe is truth from their perspective and do not ‘fairly’ examine other opposing theories, thus the failure to teach that which they teach as a theory, and rather simply teach as if though ‘this saith the Lord’ when in fact that may not be the case at all. It is most likely the case that others, looking in from the outside, are the ones more prone to denote it as the literal payment theory, not those that simply have bought into it without realizing that it is what it is denoted by others, i.e., a mere theory.

I would attribute the literal payment theory to the notions that Augustine introduced into the church and certainly developed by Calvin although much of what Calvin taught was simply a reiteration or expansion of Augustine’s thoughts, or so it would appear to me. One thing is for certain. The notion of the atonement as being a literal payment for individual sins, in like manner as one would view a forensic proceeding where a specific crime with a specific debt is paid by a specific payment, is indeed limited, to a large degree, to the Calvinistic system of thought. I know of no other system of theology that views the atonement from that particular vantage point outside of the Calvinistic circles. This particular view of the atonement is the engine behind OSAS, another decidely Calvinistic notion.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: His sin paid, not in part but the full--all of it.

HP: Songs often do not reflect the best theology. None the less, I appreciate this song. I do know of the story behind it and it is very uplifting.


I do not know where the songwriter was with his theology, but the lyrics do not in any way necessitate the idea of a literal payment in the way it is understood in Calvinistic circles. There is nothing in that song that goes against my theology, and I certainly do not hold the idea of a literal payment for specific sins accomplished at…… (When was it accomplished DHK? I forgot if in fact you ever settled on a time. Was it at the cross or does it happen at salvation?)

What was accomplished at the cross is that a substitution for the penalty of the law due us was made to God that God saw as sufficient to allow Him, given that man fulfill certain stated conditions, to governmentally treat the sinner as though he had never sinned. That atonement made the way, it built the bridge, whereby the possibility existed that all could come to God by faith, yet it did not secure the salvation of any particular person nor did it have as its 'direct' object any specific sin to cover for. It was a satisfaction of the debt for every sin.

The only way we can be a partaker of the benefits of that atonement are to exercise the conditions God has set forth in His Word, that without which no man shall see God. Repentance and faith are the first two conditions that the sinner must meet to receive a pardon for sins that are past, without which no pardon can or will be found.

The atonement in no wise gives a blanket pardon for any sin that one would refuse to repent and turn from or any future sins that repentance was not invoked subsequent to the selfish intent. Scripture is exceedingly clear. Only those ‘sins that are past’ are the object of forgiveness and pardon. And that without repentance, no salvation is possible. Ro 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; Lu 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

By the way, the 'all' means all, regardless of what one has received in the past.

 

[Marcia]

HP: If I were a guessing man, having never been to a seminary, the problem is that most teach what they believe is truth from their perspective and do not ‘fairly’ examine other opposing theories, thus the failure to teach that which they teach as a theory, and rather simply teach as if though ‘this saith the Lord’ when in fact that may not be the case at all.

Actually, one chooses a seminary that matches their perspective either because they are going to be ordained by a certain group and/or because they want to study under the teachings of those who believe as they do. This is natural.

My seminary does present opposing views because it is apologetics oriented. So we actually have to write papers refuting other views.

I would attribute the literal payment theory to the notions that Augustine introduced into the church and certainly developed by Calvin although much of what Calvin taught was simply a reiteration or expansion of Augustine’s thoughts, or so it would appear to me. One thing is for certain. The notion of the atonement as being a literal payment for individual sins, in like manner as one would view a forensic proceeding where a specific crime with a specific debt is paid by a specific payment, is indeed limited, to a large degree, to the Calvinistic system of thought. I know of no other system of theology that views the atonement from that particular vantage point outside of the Calvinistic circles. This particular view of the atonement is the engine behind OSAS, another decidely Calvinistic notion

I am OSAS but am not a Calvinist.

 

[EdSutton]

When are ones sins remitted and forgiven? Where they remitted at the cross two thousand years ago, at the point one ‘gets saved,’ or when?

The 'good news' is that our sins were 'remitted' and our tresspasses forgiven, when our Lord shed his blood on Mt. Moriah, once for all time, according to the Scriptures. He died, and was buried (to 'prove' his death), rose and was seen (to prove His resurrection), by over 500 people at one time. (All Scripture is from NKJV, unless otherwise noted)

1 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. (I Cor. 15: 1-5)

Who is the "our" here? It is the church, which He loved, and gave Himself for, when He, who was sinless (as prophesied in Isa. 53:9), bore our sins.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.
21 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us,[a] leaving us[b] an example, that you should follow His steps:
22 “ Who committed no sin,
Nor was deceit found in His mouth”;[c]
23 who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously; 24 who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed. (I Pet. 2:21-14)

Is that it? Nope! Still going! He went byond that, remitting the sins that were past, hence those of believers before the cross, as well. He became, literally, the Mercy-Seat or propitiation, by faith, hence died for sins that are past, at that time.

25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; (Rom. 3:25-28 - KJV)
25whom God has set forth a mercy-seat, through faith in his blood, for [the] shewing forth of his righteousness, in respect of the passing by the sins that had taken place before, through the forbearance of God; (Rom. 3:25-28 - DARBY)

But, even more than that, he became the propitiation for the whole world

2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. (I John 2:2)

That it? Nope, still more. His sacrifice of Himself wasn't just for sins, but he died to and for sin, He being "made sin for us", hence all sins were imputed to Him, and this offering, a one time event, for all time forever satisfied the sin question. There is simply no mention in Scripture of anything or any phrase remotely close to "turning from future sins!" Sin, is not even an issure, any longer, as the penalty of it was fully paid with His precious blood, and reconciliation has, indeed, taken place, and this, as propitiation, is availed by repentance/faith, effectively "flip sides" of the same thing. This is the gospel. The only question now, (and actually then) was and is faith in the blood.

9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. (Rom. 6:9- 10)

18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. 21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. (II Cor. 5:18-21)

5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand. (Isa. 53:5-6, 10)

10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,(Heb. 10:10, 12)

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ,[a] for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.

17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”[a]
(Rom. 1:16-17, c.f. Hab. 2:4; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38)

The 'perfect' tense. Once for all time; over and done; paid in full! "Glory to his name," as the song says.

Ed

 

[DHK]

HP: Songs often do not reflect the best theology. None the less, I appreciate this song. I do know of the story behind it and it is very uplifting.


I do not know where the songwriter was with his theology, but the lyrics do not in any way necessitate the idea of a literal payment in the way it is understood in Calvinistic circles. There is nothing in that song that goes against my theology, and I certainly do not hold the idea of a literal payment for specific sins accomplished at…… (When was it accomplished DHK? I forgot if in fact you ever settled on a time. Was it at the cross or does it happen at salvation?)

"That Christ has regarded my helpless estate,
And hath shed His own blood for my soul."

The song writer made it personal, as we all do. If Christ shed his blood for Horatio Spafford's soul, then he also shed his blood for HP's soul, for DHK's soul, and for the soul's of all the world, as 1John 2:2 teaches. He made a propitiation for us, not for us only but for the sins of the whole world.

The sins of the whole world were nailed to the cross:

My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!
My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more,
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!

It was't just some of his sins; it was all of them: past, present and future.
As he says: "not in part but the whole."
The penalty was paid in full--for all of sins. Again he personalizes it, as we all do. Christ paid the penalty for all of our sins: past, present and future. It was all paid for at the cross: not in part but the whole.
It was nailed to the cross; we need not bear it no more.
He didn't bear it any longer for he went to Christ. Once it is confessed to Christ it is gone. It is legally and officially gone at the time of salvation. All of our sin is forgiven at that time. The payment was made at the cross, 2000 years ago.

What was accomplished at the cross is that a substitution for the penalty of the law due us was made to God that God saw as sufficient to allow Him, given that man fulfill certain stated conditions, to governmentally treat the sinner as though he had never sinned.

Salvation is a gift, a free gift of God. There are no conditions to be met.

Think of yourself as having committed some serious crime. You stand before the judge guilty. Your sentence is either one million dollars in fine or twenty years in jail. You can't afford a million dollars, and neither can you afford to spend 20 years in jail. You are at a loss what to do. Both options seem to be unfair and unjust to you. But that is what the law has demanded. The law is always just and fair. Suppose someone kind enough, out of his love offered to pay the penalty for you. He is a rich man, and had an extra million dollars. He says to you: "Take this gift, admit your guilt, and give it to the judge. He will set you free."
But you refuse the gift, perhaps out of pride. You say I am too good for charity. I don't deserve this punishment. You make excuses. Whatever you think you don't want to humble yourself and take the man's offer of kindness. Is that rational? No. All you had to do is admit your guilt and take the gift.

Jesus does the same thing. He is the one who has already paid the penalty. He says admit your guilt (I am a sinner); take this gift (eternal life), I have done the rest for you. I have already gone to the Father, the Judge on your behalf. All that you have to do is accept the gift, my offer to you. I have already paid the penalty of your crime. Just accept the gift that I have already atoned for.
The penalty has been paid for, but it cannot be made viable unless you accept it.

That atonement made the way, it built the bridge, whereby the possibility existed that all could come to God by faith, yet it did not secure the salvation of any particular person nor did it have as its 'direct' object any specific sin to cover for. It was a satisfaction of the debt for every sin.

The atonement covers all sin. They were all paid for. But the payment for those sins must be accepted by faith.

The only way we can be a partaker of the benefits of that atonement are to exercise the conditions God has set forth in His Word, that without which no man shall see God. Repentance and faith are the first two conditions that the sinner must meet to receive a pardon for sins that are past, without which no pardon can or will be found.

Repentance is the flip side of faith, so to speak. It is not a work. Faith is a believing faith which results in works and a changed life. Thus salvation, the gift of God, is by faith alone. There are no conditions.

The atonement in no wise gives a blanket pardon for any sin that one would refuse to repent and turn from or any future sins that repentance was not invoked subsequent to the selfish intent.

Salvation is by faith alone.
Therefore, being justified by faith we have peace with God.
Perhaps you have a wrong definition of repentance.

Scripture is exceedingly clear. Only those ‘sins that are past’ are the object of forgiveness and pardon. And that without repentance, no salvation is possible. Ro 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

I believe Ed already addressed this point for you. Have you consulted the Greek and read some other translations.

Lu 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

This is out of context, and is not speaking of NT salvation.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: It was nailed to the cross; we need not bear it no more.
He didn't bear it any longer for he went to Christ. Once it is confessed to Christ it is gone. It is legally and officially gone at the time of salvation. All of our sin is forgiven at that time. The payment was made at the cross, 2000 years ago.

HP: First you seem to waffle between sins being paid for at the cross and sins being paid for at salvation. Which is it? Can something be paid for in full at a specific time and a specific place, yet not be official?? Even if that was somehow true it would not extract you from the problems you are facing with your position as we shall see.

How can a sin be paid for and not forgiven? If the debt is removed and the payment made at the cross, what is left to charge anyone with subsequent to that payment being made?

Is unbelief sin? If ALL means all, and all sins were paid for, how can you say that God will hold the sin of unbelief against anyone?? I know you are not a universalist, and I am not accusing you of being one, but your doctrine supports that notion even when you deny it. ‘Logically’ your doctrine is a universalist position, although again I know you do not hold to universalism. The fact that logic necessitates the universalist position from your stated beliefs should be a red flag that something is amiss in your position.

Again, if the debt is ‘literally’ paid for at the cross, as you this far have stated it is, when is it un-paid for in the case of those with the sin of unbelief? Are you going to be consistent and tell us that the sins of those in unbelief could never have been paid for, or the Scriptures are in error that state that ‘ALL’ sins have been paid for, past, present, and future for not only our sins, but for the sins of the entire world? ….or that ‘all’ doesn’t really mean ‘all?’

 

[Marcia]

Jesus paid for the penalty of sin at the cross and was a propitiation for our sins.

Jesus' work and death on the cross allows us to be forgiven through faith. If we had to pay the debt, we'd have to go to hell.