The Baptist Notion of Payment Revoked

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Heavenly Pilgrim, Feb 23, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why do some Baptist's believe in payment for sins revoked and then point their fingers at the others that believe on can have their forgiveness revoked? Is it not true that the Calvinist believes in the literal payment theory, Christ having literally paid for the sins of the world? Oh, I almost forgot. The true blue Calvinist DOES NOT believe that all sins have been paid for, do they? In order to be consistent they of necessity must believe that it is indeed only the sins of the elect that have in reality been paid for, and as such Limited Atonement is again, and that of necessity, invoked.

    Along comes what I will refer to as the ‘reformed Calvinist’commonly I see as simply desiring to be called 'Baptist,' that tries to say they are not a Calvinist, emphatically stating the Limited Atonement is in error, yet still holding firm to the idea of the literal payment theory of the Calvinist. My question to them is this. Either sins were literally paid for on the cross or not. If only the sins of the elect are paid for they must of necessity hold to a limited atonement. If they deny a limited atonement, they have a new problem. If the sins of the entire world were literally paid for, yet in the end there are some that have and will not be forgiven, the payment that they say was literally paid of necessity must have been revoked at one time or another. When is the payment for the sins of the lost, that the theory of a literal payment claims was made on the cross, revoked in the case of those that Scripture clearly states will be damned eternally?
     
  2. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let me ask the question in a simpler way. If all sins have been paid for at the cross, and some find in the end that they are still held accountable for their sins, when did they lose the 'ETERNAL' forgiveness that was paid for at the cross, Scripture tells us was made "ONCE FOR ALL"? If salvation is a gift and was paid for at the cross for all, yet some are lost in the end, when did they lose their gift of salvation? If one has their sins paid for, would that not assure that they are in a right standing before God? If no sin remains between them and God, what could separate them from God? Have not ALL sins been paid for, "PAST PRESENT AND FUTURE?"........or are we back to Limited Atonement where only the sins of the elect have that standing?

    Either all sins were paid for at the cross or they were not. Either all sin is paid for or only the sins of the elect are paid for. Either the atonement is indeed limited as the Calvinist claims or the forgiveness and subsequent salvation of the lost has indeed been revoked or lost. It is absurd to try and escape the logical necessitated consequence of Limited Atonement, while holding on to the idea that a literal payment for sin has been made on the cross for all the sins of the world. Why should I not see the Baptist that denies Calvinism but upholds the Calvinistic idea of the literal payment theory, as completely and utterly inconsistent and illogical?

    I am simply asking. :)
     
  3. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    I do not know of anyone who posts down here in this forum that believes in this. If you want to debate the intricacies of five point Calvinisim why not take it to the Baptist Only forums where there are far more threads on Calvinism. You won't find that here. I am not a Calvinist, as I have said many times. Don't accuse me of being one. I can foresee this thread being shut down really fast, just as the entire Cal/Arm forum was shut down completely.
     
  4. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0



    HP: I did not insinuate nor did I say that anyone here believes in a limited atonement. Read the post and think carefully about what I am asking. Try addressing the questions I asked concerning beliefs you do believe in and the logical problems it induces, in particular the ramifications of believing in a literal payment theory. When is the payment that you say has been made for the sins of all revoked on the part of the damned?

    Why should I not see the Baptist that denies Calvinism but upholds the Calvinistic idea of the literal payment theory, as completely and utterly inconsistent and illogical?

    By the way, this is NOT an Arminian verses Calvinistic notion as you imply. I am not an Arminian by any stretch. This is a matter that deals with Calvinists and Baptists that claim they are not Calvinistic, and the glaring inconsistenties I believe are clearly evident to the fair and open minded observer, regardless of their personal theological position. If you try and make this a Calvinistic/Arminian discussion, that will be a clear and obvious diversion of this thread from the OP, and will be seen as such due to your own making and not of the OP or myself.
     
    #4 Heavenly Pilgrim, Feb 23, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 23, 2008
  5. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134

    Eternal means eternal. Words have meaning. If eternal does't mean eternal, then what does it mean? If Jesus promised eternal life to the person who believed on him, and eternal life could end or be lost at any time, then Christ is not God, and He is the biggest liar that ever lived! Is that your belief?

    1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
    --Christ suffered "once for all."
    He was the just, who suffered for us, the unjust.
    When he uttered in John 19:30, "It is finished," the sacrifice was paid, there was nothing more to do; the atonement was made.

    1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
    --How clear a verse can one have? He is the propitiation (the legal satisfication) for our sins. Not just the elect, but for the sins of the whole world. The price was paid; our sins forgiven; once and for all--to all them that believe on him.

    Romans 8:1 "There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus." How much condemnation? None!
    What gives you the idea, then, that some will still be held accountable for their sin? They will not! In reference to salvation no believer will ever again be held accoutable for any sin--past, present or future. They are all under the blood.
    This is a false assumption that is not taugtht in the Bible. In fact the opposite is taught. In His Great High Priestly Prayer, Jesus said "I have lost none." No one who is saved will ever be lost. What gives you the idea that they will? Eternal life cannot turn into temporary life. A child born cannot turn into a child unborn. These statements go entirely against the Bible, our English language and common sense, as well as the nature and character of God.
    Absolutely. Lot, as wicked as he was, had a right standing before God. He was declared just and righteous. So was the thief on the cross, though he never did a good work in his life, nor was he baptized.
    Why bring limited atonement into this discussion. I refuse to discuss a man's theological system in which I have no interest and in which I do not believe in the first place.

    The Bible obviously teaches they were. The plain reading of verses as simple as John 3:16 teaches that.
    Why bring this red herring to the table. We know it is not true, and I have no interest in discussing it.
    Or salvation is provided by a man eating green cheese on the moon and demands that you do the same :rolleyes:
    You present two options leaving no room for any other.
    Your premise is believe heresy #1 or believe heresy #2. Have you deliberately left the Bible out of the picture?
    And therefore I refuse to answer the rest of your post.
     
  6. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    How can one believe that all sins are literally and eternally paid for on the cross, to the extent that all past present and future sins are forgiven, never to be remembered, and yet then you tell us that the sins of some are in the end held against them, all the while maintaining that limited atonement is in error? Either Christ literally paid for the sins of the entire world eternally on the cross or He did not. Which is it DHK? Did Christ just literally pay for the ‘sins of the elect' eternally, while paying literally for the ‘sins of the damned' temporarily? If He paid literally for the sins of all, when does He disannul, revoke, or lose the forgiveness of, the sins that will be held against the sinner at the judgment? When does the payment made on behalf of the sins of the damned become 'temporal' instead of the 'eternal' forgiveness you unequivocally demand that His forgiveness and payment is?

    If you do not believe the sins of the entire world were literally paid for at the cross, just say so. On the other hand if you do, you have some serious explaining to do that so far you are simply evading. Are the sins of the lost going to be brought up at the judgment, when according to you they have been literally paid for on the cross? Was the payment made for their sins not ‘eternal’ as you insist upon those that the sins of the saved are? Your argument so far demands that forgiveness invoked is absolutely and without change ‘eternal’ in nature, or God is a liar, and yet you say that God can and did literally pay for the sins of the entire world, yet such payment is simply ineffective for those lost.

    There is a clear problem with the reasoning as DHK has presented thus far.
     
  7. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe you know the arguments of a Calvinist Baptist on that matter.
     
    #7 TCGreek, Feb 23, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 23, 2008
  8. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    One can believe that all sins are literally and eternally paid for on the cross to the extent that all past, present, and future sins are forgiven, never to be remembered, because that is what the Bible teaches. It is that simple.

    "then you tell us that the sins of some are in the end held against them, all the while maintaining that limited atonement is in error?"
    --don't slander me. I didn't say that. If I did quote me!

    I am quite tired of playing your Calvinistic games.

     
  9. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is an economic problem, not a theological problem. How the professional preachers going to pay their bills if they honestly preach that there is salvation outside the organized church? Half of church dogma should be discussed in terms of command and control.
     
  10. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0


    HP: Some things in a debate we all tire of, personal attacks being one.

    Moving right along…….Are you suggesting that you believe in a limited atonement, and that you do not believe that some are going to have their sins held against them? Honestly, I did NOT misrepresent your views in the least, now did I?



    HP: Now you would'nt happen to have a reference for that which you say is stated in Scripture would you? Pick your favorite verse and let's look at it fairly in light of some good rules of biblical interpretation of your choice. May I offer you a good one to start with?
    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;

     
    #10 Heavenly Pilgrim, Feb 23, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 23, 2008
  11. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    HP: What about the Baptist that claims not to be a Calvinist yet holds to a literal payment for all sins, past present and future? Do you see the problem I am trying to set forth?
     
  12. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134

    Pointing out the truth is not a personal attack. Quote me. Don't lie about me.

    Another deliberate misrepresentation. I never said that. In fact I said the opposite. Why don't you quote me. My position is that Christ died for the sins of the whole world as it states in John 3:16 and plenty of other Scriptures. Why the slander.

    Under the rules:
    [SIZE=-1] 5. No trolling. Trolling consists of provoking large volumes of responses by posting absurdities, deliberately offensive insults, etc.

    IMO, you are acting as a troll--baiting, provoking, being deliberately offensive!
    Is there a reason for this behaviour??

    In your further responses to any of my theological positions quote what I have said. Don't assume you know my position. However, I foresee the closing of this thread.

    [/SIZE]



     
  13. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0


    HP: I never lied about you. For you to imply I did is a a misrepresentation of the facts and is nothing short of implied slander.

    It is totally in keeping with fair play in common parlance to make mention of something one has said without actually quoting them, and still say that they in fact ‘said something.’ Words have clear implications to the listener, and although you might not repeat something in exact quotes does not necessitate one ‘lying’ or ‘slander’ when one puts in their own word ideas obviously consistent with what the other actually said. What is amazing to me is that you are hard on the accusations yet provide the listener no evidence of any substance to your personal attacks. For instance, in your remarks above, you are in essence ‘saying’ I am a liar. Due to your former accusations and your remark here, that is precisely the notion you leave with the listener. I believe I would be fair to say that in essense you called me a liar. That is the clear impression you leave with the listener.
    Quote:
    HP: Moving right along…….Are you suggesting that you believe in a limited atonement, and that you do not believe that some are going to have their sins held against them? Honestly, I did NOT misrepresent your views in the least, now did I?



    HP: Who argues with that point? The point that is being discussed is NOT about Christ dying for the whole world, we all agree! The point is whether or not sins were literally paid for by His death. That is the point that I believe you have insinuated by your remarks. Why not simply state your position clearly so as to clear up any misunderstandings? Do you or do you not believe and teach that all sins were literally paid for on the cross? Here is a clear opportunity to clear up any misunderstandings.




    HP: I consider personal attacks, such as calling the other a heretic or the notions of another on this debate forum as heretical, calling the other a liar, and accusing the other unjustly of slander is indeed "deliberate odffensive remarks." I am glad you brought that rule to our attention. We would all do well to take that sound and reasonable advice.

    I am making remarks and entering into a debate on this list as a directly response to remarks you have either made or insinuated. I am simply taking your ideas out to their logical conclusions. If you do not like the logical conclusions one draws from your remarks, you might consider rethinking your position. If you do not desire to debate the issue, why are you a moderator on a debate forum listed as ‘other denominations?' It should not come as any surprise or shock that some of us have different opinions as to the truth. I was under the impression that this is the place to discuss and debate the issues in a civil manner without personal attacks by the way. Shall we set the example for others to follow?
     
    #13 Heavenly Pilgrim, Feb 23, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 23, 2008
  14. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134

    You clearly did. Nowhere did I ever come even remotely close to indicating a belief in limited atonement. Why, therefore, do you suggest that that is my belief? If you have read even the first page (and there are only two thus far) you would know what I belief. But to refresh your memory here is what I have already posted:

    I believe that my position is clear enough.
     
  15. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0

    HP: Who knows what one means by a list of Scriptures? They are all subject to interpretation, as we all well understand.

    Let me try a different angle. I will quote you directly and then ask you for a direct clarification of your stated position. You said, and I quote,

    HP: May I kindly ask you if in fact this is a direct quote of yours? I would kindly ask you the following question: Does the
    you speak of, include those sins of the lost as well as the saved, or of the saved alone?
     
  16. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    The first part of my quote above is:

    Obviously eternal life (and thus forgiveness of sins) is granted to those who believe on him.

    "For whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved"
    "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
     
  17. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let me try a different angle one more time. I will quote you directly and then ask you for a direct clarification of your stated position. You said, and I quote,
    Quote:



    HP: May I kindly ask you if in fact this is a direct quote of yours? I would kindly ask you the following question: Does the Quote:
    “all sins are literally and eternally paid for on the cross to the extent that all past, present, and future sins are forgiven, never to be remembered, because that is what the Bible teaches”
    you speak of, include those sins of the lost as well as the saved, or of the saved alone?
     
  18. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    I have answered your question once. Why do you repeat it? You will only get the same answer again. What is with the games?

    When one believes on the Lord Jesus Christ all his sins are forgiven: the past, the present and the future. He is eternally saved.
     
  19. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0


    HP: Why do you avoid such a simple question as I asked? Your answer here in no way is a direct response to my simple and straight forward question. You said “all sins.” Were the sins of the unsaved paid for on the cross eternally once for all, or was it only the sins of the saved that were literally paid for that you speak about?
     
  20. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0


    HP: Let me help the listener out if in fact there are any out there that are confused as to the point being discussed and the precarious position DHK has placed himself in. If he answers that the ‘all sins’ he speaks of includes the sins of the lost, the logical conclusion can only be universalism. If he answers that the ‘all sins’ he speaks about does NOT include the sins of the lost, there is only one logical conclusion for the listener to draw, and that is that he would be shown as clearly in support of a limited atonement or that the atonement was not finished on the cross and still has to atone for the sins of the lost at some future time for them to be forgiven.

    Can the reader see the position the notion of a literal payment places one when it is examined in the light of reason and logic?
     
    #20 Heavenly Pilgrim, Feb 23, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 23, 2008
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...