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there are some that have and will not be forgiven, the payment that they say was literally paid of necessity must have been revoked at one time or another.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