Does Logic Demand Consistency?

In reality there are mainly primary competing notions of salvation and how it is accomplished. One views salvation as being accomplished on the cross once for all, and all one now has to do is to believe by faith they were one of the lucky ones whose sins were atoned for. This view believes that the salvation of all that will be saved was predetermined on the cross or before and that in reality only the sins of the elect or chosen were in all actuality atoned for. Hence we have the necessitated view of double predestination.

Since man had nothing to do with salvation, and all was accomplished once for all on behalf of the redeemed, there is nothing one can do to gain salvation and concludes that there is nothing one can do to lose salvation either. Hence the birth of the OSAS doctrine and Calvinism as we know it.

The other view sees salvation accomplished in basically three stages or steps if you may. The first step was the planning and implementation of the design and means by which God would reconcile sinful man to Himself. This particular view does not equate the actual salvation of any individual in particular to this plan in any way that would view salvation as being completely and totally settled on the account of any individual without that individual first fulfilling certain mandated conditions. They see God as making a way, or building a bridge whereby all might be able to be saved, but do not accept the Calvinistic notion that the salvation of all that would be saved was somehow predetermined on the cross nor do they believe that God has predetermined others to damnation. They see salvation as being accomplished in individual lives as they first hear the gospel message and then respond by fulfilling the conditions God has set forth which are initially repentance and faith. Still yet they generally hold that man must continue in obedience until the end to the end for salvation to be completed in a final sense, and eternal life is in reality a realized experienced as we pass from this life to the next.

Every belief has mandated consequences. For instance, when one believes that water freezes at 32 degrees F it does not believe that water, under normal atmospheric conditions boils at 32 degrees F. If one was to say that they believed both to be true, or stated that it was not false that water does not boil at 32 degree in normal atmospheric conditions even though they did believe that it freezes at that temperature, such a one should rightfully be seen as inconsistent and their views outside the parameters of logical and rational thought. Again, logic and reason tell us that all beliefs have necessitated consequences, and to hold to a belief while denying its corresponding necessitated logical and reasonable ends is irrational and ultimately in error.

Now the Calvinist I understand although I do not agree with his views. I at least see him as willing to swallow the logical ends of his arguments as unreasonable or out of whack with Scripture, justice, and truth as they might appear to others. The individual that I cannot understand and cannot see as logical or rational is one that starts from the same Calvinistic foundations of original sin and a literal payment theory, yet then try to distance themselves from the logical ends of those ideas. Such I see as the plight of what at least appears to make up a large segment of individuals which are intent upon calling themselves Baptist today.

For instance, they might hold to the literal payment theory, that suggests that a literal payment was made and finished once for all for sin and then try and tell us they also believe that Christ died for the sins of all. How can both be true? Are we to suppose that Christ suffered in vain, having suffered and died for the sins of some that in the end would not have their sins remitted, or that the sufferings of Christ are made of no effect due to ones unwillingness to believe, all the while telling us it was all settled in stone before we ever came into existence or drew our first breath or made our first choice? What effect could anything have on ones salvation, including having faith, concerning ones salvation if in fact it was all settled on the cross before they ever were even born as to who would and who would not inherit eternal life? If one thinks I am misrepresenting their views, please tell the list what was not accomplished on the cross that mandates that not all will be saved having all received an atonement for their sins.


They tell us that Christ died for all and that He is not willing that any should perish, yet in reality that cannot be so if we start from the notion of all being settled on the cross as they consistently tell us that is what happened. If it was all settled as they conclude, either universalism reigns or a limited atonement does. How can they expect to be received in debate forum as setting forth reasonable alternative ideas when they consistently and so vehemently deny the logical consequences of their stated beliefs?

They tell us that we need to exercise faith in order to receive salvation, but again the hail from the Calvinistic position that man is born spiritually dead, unable to do anything other than what he does under the very same set of circumstances. How can one be required to do that which according to them is a natural impossibility, and can only do what is required IF God causes or coerces them to do so? They tell us that nothing we do or can do has anything to do with our being saved or keeping saved, yet try and tell us that we need to exercise faith. If faith is simply a gift from God, either man has the gift or man does not. In either event the ends are necessitated as a direct result of the premise they start from. To suggest that we must do something in order to be saved is simply logically inconsistent with their stated premises from which they start.

Oh the maelstrom of confusion such a web of opposing ideas entangles its proponents.