The Baptist Notion of Payment Revoked

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there are some that have and will not be forgiven, the payment that they say was literally paid of necessity must have been revoked at one time or another.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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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;

 

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?

 

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?

 

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?

 

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?

 

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?

 

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?