Logic and the Literal Payment Theory

I believe in security of the believer. I am glad to see that you too believe in what I call "oneconditional eternal security" and that being faith.

I Peter 1:3 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."

Also, check the tense of "sanctified" or "made perfect"

Here is the World English Bible showing the present passive participle at work.

"For by one offering he has perfected forever those who are being sanctified."

In verse 10 the perfect participle is used while verse 14 uses the present passive participle. Does that make sense?

Let me know what you think of my take on this.

 

Yes, the perfect tenses of both vv. 10 and 14 have sealed the deal,

1. Verse 10 says that we have been sanctified, a done deal

2. And v. 14 says we have been made perfect, a done deal.

3. But this time "being sanctified" is put in the present tense against the perfect of v. 10, but only to show the process now.

We're in agreement. :thumbs:

 

If you read HP's first two posts you find a striking similarity between his "literal payment finished and paid off at the cross" and the Lev 16 concept of Day of Atonement once that day has ended - Sacrifice ended AND High Priests work ENDED.

This is the way many people view the cross today -- and it fits perfectly with what HP calls "Literal Payment".

The problem is - that people live and die and evangelism continues for the lost -- which is not supposed to happen at all - not one iota -- after the Day of Atonement. No new players no new decisions no need to repent, no promise of forgiveness -- nothing is left -- absolutely nothing when the Day of Atonement ends.

Only once in the year do you see the High Priest taking his unique role - and that is on the day of Atonement. When that is ended in the antitype service of Heb 8 -- when Christ is no longer functioning as High Priest -- when the moment comes as Rev 16 predicts when no work is done at all in the heavenly sanctuary -- the entire process is ended. No new evangelism, no promises for forgiveness, no interecession by our "ONE Mediator" in His role as High Priest -- all that will be over. Debt's paid -- cases resolved, mediation complete. Ended.


In Christ,

Bob
__________________

 

Then what is the meaning of the atonement for today?

 

HP, my understanding "your private interpretation" is somewhat different than yours, if it's 2 Pet 1:20 you have in mind.

At any rate, Jesus said that he was going to give his life as a ransom for many (Matt 20:28).

He did just that, or Paul wouldn't have been able to say:

"9Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! 10For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation." (Rom 5:9-11, TNIV).

The atonement of Christ did accomplish what it was set out to accomplish. There's nothing potential about it, for it is actual.

 

As an aside here, I believe that this concept of "private interpretation" must be clearly understood. It is accusation of the RCC that the Baptists have their own "private interpretation" because they believe in sola scriptura. They hotly deny the doctrine of sola scriptura. But in reality the opposite is true. The Catholics are the ones that have a "private interpretation" of the Scriputes that is forced upon all, and deny the Biblical teaching of sola scriptura. Let's look at Scripture:

2 Peter 1:19-21 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The context is set for us in verses 16-18. There Peter describes one of the greatest experiences of his lifetime--the transfiguration on the mount, where he saw Jesus transfigured before him, and the appearance of Elijah and Moses. What a glorious experience it was; one that he would never forget. Only three people in all the world would ever see that experience or witness something like that. Peter would treasure it forever. He saw the glory of God. It went against all his own logic: for no man can see God and live, and yet Peter in his experience had done this very thing. This was his experience.

Now in verse 19, he gives a comparison to that great mountaintop experience. He says: "We have a more sure word of prophecy." He is saying that we have something even greater than the greatest experience a man can ever have, and that is the Word of God. The Word of God is greater than experience. It is the foundation of all that we have. It surpasses all experience. It is the foundation of all or our beliefs. It is even greater than what I say on the Mount of Transfiguration.
--We have a more sure word of prophecy. That more sure word of prophecy will continue until the canon is closed. For he mentions until the coming of Christ. He is not suggesting that revelation will continue until then, but Peter knows that the NT revelation is not finished yet, and does not know when it will be finished. He does know that it will be finished before the coming of Christ. As it was it was finished after his death, but before the end of the first century.

In verse 20 he writes that no prophecy of the Scipture is of private interpretation.
The private interpretation refers to an organization. That is the primary meaning. In other words the church at Ephesus, for example, could not claim that their interpretation was correct and the interpretation of the church at Philippi was wrong. It was not referring to individuals but to organizations. Individuals depended upon their leaders.

Thus today the RCC has a private interpretation of the Bible where every individual must conform to the catechism, and not only that, they must conform to the interpretation of the priest's reading of the Bible. They are not allowed to interpret it on their own. Only the priest is allowed to interpret it according to the dictates of the Magesterium. There is no sola scriptura. There is no need therefore for personal study of the Bible, which goes against such Scripture as "Study to show yourself approved unto God," "Search the Scriptures," etc.

Examples of "Private Interpretation":
1 Timothy 4:1-3 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

--Forbidding to marry is a doctrine of demons. It is a command given by the Catholic Church to their priests. It is a private interpretation.
--The same goes for "abstaining from 'foods'" which the Old English word "meats" means. The SDA are primarily vegetarians and command their adherents to abstain from meat. It is a religious command, not one given out of preference. Thus it becomes a doctrine of demons.
The truth is you can eat anything you want, have any kind of diet you want. It is your choice if you want to be a vegetarian or not. But if you belong to a religious organization where they claim you, according to the Bible, must be a vegetarian, then that is a doctrine of demons. It is a private interpetation of that church, which is unbiblical.
The RCC has private interpretations concerning many unbiblical doctrines: indulgences, purgatory, the immaculate conception, the assumption, etc. These are not even found in the Bible, though the RCC may claim they are.

 

I have no reason to doubt the words of Jesus.

"just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

If Jesus said he was going to ransom many by the giving of his life, when he gave his life, he actually ransomed many.

I know of no other way to understand his words.

"9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! 10 For if, while we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11 Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation."

We have been justified and reconciled are both aorist passives in the Greek, denoting a done deal for believers.

Are you looking for a verse that will say: The death of Christ was an actual literal payment for sins?

Romans 3:21-26 happens to be my most meaningful theological text. Let me offer a few lines:

"24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith" (ESV).

By giving his life on the cross, Christ actually propitiated the Father, and that is why, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Rom 8:1).

As a believer, for whom Christ died, my sins are all paid for in full, past, present and future.

The Father no long deals with me as a Judge but as a Loving Father (Heb 12:4-11).

There's a BIG difference by friend.

I'll encourage you to read Luke 13:3, 5 in context.

I cannot improve on these words that have been my anchor in the time of doubt:

"For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy" (Heb 10:14, TNIV).

In his own words Jesus said that he was laying down his life for his sheep. Not if they become his sheep, but because they are already his sheep, he lays down his life for them:

""I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep."

"25 Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father's name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all ; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one."

The above verses from John 10 are self-explanatory.

 

Maybe you should use Eph 2:8 instead.

HP, let's deal with what a text says. How one appropriate the blood is another issue.

I thought we were addressing the literal atonement of Messiah.

Again, my effort was only to demonstrate from Scripture that the atonement was actual.

Examing Scripture to see the truths that are there, is what I'm about. I hope you too.

What does it mean then?

You may not see Scripture teaching the eternal security of the believer, but I do.

Those who cast away their faith never belonged to Christ (Matt 7:21ff). Jesus said "I never knew you" to religious people.

I quoted the TNIV at Rom 8:1; I'm sorry I didn't make that obvious.

See Heb 10:14.

I'm not looking forward to a judgment to determine my salvation. That has been settled in Christ (Rom 8:1).

My only judgment is in reference to my rewards (1 Cor 3:10-15; 2 Cor 5:10).

HP, I majored in NT Greek in seminary, and I do not apologize for using it in my ministry or in debating.

In the Greek the object of "perfecting" are "those who are being sanctified," and Christ has done that through the "one sacrifice."

So your rearranging of the verse doesn't fit the Greek text.

Even the KJV doesn't support your view:

"For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."

The KJV is on target. :thumbs:

Believers are the ones who are perfected forever not a plan.

 

Not a good choice if you ask me. And since you didn't ask...

I would agree that a believer does not look to a day of judgement that will determine his salvation. However, I still think that you are missing the mark on the fact that a believer is one who IS believing, not someone who believed on some day in his personal history. This verse does not support once believing, it says "one offering" perfects forever those who are believers.

Believers are sanctified. Believing once, or every now and then, does not get one a ticket to heaven nor does it perfect them forever. Those who are sanctified are those who are believers and as the KJV says(and sadly left out in the NIV) in Romans 8:1 "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit".

God is faithful, but he will not avail to unfaithful men. There is no inexorable law that must continue to work regardless of the conduct of those who received words from Paul such as "he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ". These types of encouragements are given to those who Paul had reason to say them to.

In the case of the Phillipians it was because they were standing fast with Paul in his defense of the gospel in the face of grave danger. Nowhere does Paul give a weak OSAS "well I know you are a bunch of sinners, and you will never stop sinning" but He who began a good work in you will keep you saved no matter how you live.

Resorting to "well then they were never saved" does an injustice to the multitude of warnings and admonitions in scripture.

 

Trustitl, at Rom 8:1 we're dealing with matters of textual criticism.

But let's say I were to go with the KJV rendering, the question must be asked, Is Paul dealing with a condition or a consequence of what it means "Now no more condemnation for those who are in Christ"?

Again, the object of "he has perfected" are "those who are being sanctified."

It doesn't matter how much I try, the meaning of this verse is clear to me: by the one sacrife of Jesus he as perfected believers who are being sanctified.

This is from salvation to sanctification and then glorification. I see them all in that verse.

If you favor the KJV then so be it, but until you can provide textual evidence why the KJV's rendering is to be preferred, I consider your statement "sadly left out in the NIV" a moot point.

I believe in the eternal security of the believer and I do take the admonitions seriously.

 

HP, learning NT Greek for me is a blessing and a tool to understand and do ministry better.

I wish not to defend myself on the matter. Rarely do I appeal to the Greek in a debate here on BB. I only do so when I think a point would be served better by the use of it.

Yes, I believe the Holy Spirit is our resident teacher, but I believe we have a responsibility to do our best as workers who need not be ashamed, correctly handling the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15).

I have no aversion to the biblical languages.

we have both approached this debate with obvious biases. I'm sorry that you didn't see my efforts as substantial proof for what I subscribe to.

If your efforts were aimed at Calvinism, then you should have made that known from the outset.

 

Atonement has the meaning God gave it in Lev 16 in His presentation of the "Day of Atonement".

Atonement includes BOTH the "Atoning Sacrifice" (1John 2:2 NIV) of Lev 16:15 AND the Lev 16 High Priestly work of Christ that we see in Heb 8 and 9 post Cross.

Just no way to turn away from what God specified and that means that the sacrifice of atonement is being administered by Christ for individuals today -- it also means that falling from Grace and being severed from Christ is still very possible for the believer as Paul argues in Gal 5.

in Christ,

Bob

 

If I could get us back to the key points of the OP

At this point HP makes a good case for limited atonement IF one ignores Lev 16 and supposes that "The Atoning Sacrifice" 1John 2:2 made at the cross ALSO included the High Priestly work of Christ not begun until the Heb 8 event and that innexplicably both the sacrifice on the cross AND the ministry of the High-Priest post cross - all ended at the cross.

Again -- this assumes the "completed atonment of BOTH the work of sacrifice AND the work of High Priest ended at the cross" that is the only way to get to "no sin exists".