The words, phrase, and ideas we project have clear logical implications. To make a statement and then to deny its logical implications is to practice self deception. Let me illustrate. The notion of the literal payment theory has over and over been affirmed by many on this list as a valid explanation of what was accomplished on the cross. It basically is saying that all sins have been literally paid for on the cross. Many claim that every sin they have or ever will commit was literally paid for on the cross and their only obligation is to simply have faith and believe that such is true to receive eternal life that cannot be taken away. Why? Again, due to the fact that the forgiveness received is eternal in nature. Let us examine the logic implications of such a belief. First, if all sins are literally and eteranlly paid for at the cross, the debt of sin would have been eternally set aside. If one insists that the debt of all their sins has been eternally set aside at the cross, AND that Christ died for the sins of the entire world, tell me how logically or otherwise why one is not forced to believe in universalism? Can something be set aside eternally for every man, and yet not be set aside in the case of some, at the same time in the same sense? Can something (sin in this case) exist and not exist, be set aside and not set aside, at the same time in the same sense? Am I making the problem of the logical implications thus far clear? Can anyone on the list show how the logical implications I am presenting concerning the literal payment theory are in any way faulty or in error?