Logic and the Literal Payment Theory

HP: The point I am making, which I am certain you understand, is that when one states that they believe all sins are paid for literally on the cross while denying universalism, and that once forgiven always forgiven is invoked, ( an eternal payment applied once for all) one of necessity logically infers a limited atonement. When one denies a limited atonement and denies universalism, yet subscribes to a literal and eternal payment, one has affirmed a logical contradiction. Either one is logically forced to uphold Universalism or one is logically forced to accept a limited atonement if one believes a literal and eternal payment for sin has been made on the cross in the manner in which the literal payment theory clearly implies.

My point is not to pick on anyone, including DHK, but rather I am simply trying to get us to come to grips with the logical implications of our beliefs and to hopefully help us realize that to entertain absurdities within our theology does nothing for the furtherance of truth. If we can clearly see, as DHK does, that universalism is in error and that a limited atonement is in error, then we need to take the next step and examine the false conclusions the literal payment theory logically imbibes.

 

Let me try to simplify the stated absurdity I am addressing. It appears that many Baptists today reel from the Calvinistic notion of a limited atonement. They deny the atonement was for a select few and loudly affirm that the atonement was for all, not simply the elect. The problem is when they also affirm a ‘once for all’ ‘eternal payment’ has been applied to their sins at Calvary. If that was true, and Christ paid the sin debt for the whole world. How could anyone be lost? All would have had to have all their sins eternally paid for, would they not? In such a case, Universalism by necessity reigns.

Denying universalism, they state that not all will be saved, and somehow try and attach ones ‘free’ choice in either accepting or rejecting salvations offer, yet how does this separate them from the absurdity of having all sins literally paid for? Is not the rejection of Jesus Christ a sin? Was it not paid for on the cross? If not then all sins could not have been paid for, due to the fact that no payment was obviously applied to the sin of rejecting Christ. If we say that the only damning sin is the rejection of Jesus Christ, due to the fact that no payment was made for this sin, we would have to admit that not all sins are paid for, now would we not? Not only that, but then we would also have to conclude that since no payment was made for the rejection of Jesus Christ, that the first time one rejects an offer of salvation, he would of necessity be damned forever due to the fact such a one would have committed a sin for which no payment was made to cover for.

Anyway you slice it, the modern day Baptist or others with like beliefs, denying a limited atonement but affirming the literal eternal payment for sins on the cross, has created for themselves an illogical dilemma of great proportion which entertains clear absurdities. Certainly the Calvinist is in error with their limited atonement, but the modern day Baptist solution is less than a viable solution, and genders much logical confusion.

Again the only escape to the logical error I am pointing out is to reconsider what was accomplished on the cross. If we are to escape the clutches of necessitated error of any literal payment being made for all, and that eternally, on the cross, we are going to have to look outside the Calvinistic box of the ‘literal payment theory’ for viable solutions.

 

If all was accomplished over two thousand years ago in a literal payment for sin, and that payment includes ever sin one has, is now committing, or ever will commit, and all was done eternally before man ever had a single choice to make, are we now to assume that one could undo which was eternally accomplished before we drew the first breath? How can one then logically conclude that the sins we commit, having been ETERNALLY paid for, could ever be held against anyone regardless of any decision or choice made to accept or reject anything in this life? Can a decision we make in this life disallow or set aside an eternal payment made by God Himself?? Who are we to thwart the Omnipotent hand of God in the eternal payment made for sin and that for all? How can a 'done deal,' finished over two thousand years before we were even born, be affected by any decision we will or could make today?

If Universalism does not reign, or if we do not desire for it to reign, we had better consider this issue of the ‘literal payment theory’ carefully.

 

HP: Can you explain to us what is the meaning of the atonement according to what you see as the ‘NT writer’s interpretation?’

 

HP: Can you explain to us what you interpret that to mean? Are the sins for all addressed, or only those of the elect? Did Christ literally pay the sin debt of the entire world or simply of the elect? Was the payment made eternal in scope or can it be revoked or simply not applied in some instances? How does our aceptance or rejection of the price paid affect the price being paid as an eternal price paid? Can something we do, or can anything we do, affect in any way that which has been eternally accomplished before we drew our first breath?

 

HP: What do you mean by that?

 

HP: I believe I have a handle on the beliefs of a five point Calvinist. Just the same. it never hurts to be open enough to allow your beliefs to be examined from other angles.

 

HP: Am I correct in assuming that what you really meant was ‘certain select sinner’ namely the elect and the elect only? Do you not deny that Christ died for the sins of the whole world as Scripture plainly states? 1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Explain to the list how Christ died for the whole world. What was accomplished on the part of ‘all sins,’ not simply the sins of the elect?

 

HP: TCG, I do not see a direct answer to these simple questrions. Did I miss them? What does the phrase, 'but also for the sins of the whole world' mean?

 

HP: Why would you believe anything else? I have asked some straight forward questions that deserve answers. Why not simply start there?

 

HP: Speaking once again of Scripture being of no private interpretation………

Here you try and line up grace with your ‘interpretation’ of what grace as if though by your statement alone you have the rights to the issue of grace. It is like saying that what you believe is automatically right and all other opinions concerning grace are automatically wrong. What kind of an attitude do you think that projects? One shockingly similar to the one Augustine showed I am afraid.

Instead of trying to manipulate the discussion by attempting to foist the high ground by merely begging the question, why don’t you first establish what these doctrines of grace are you speak of with evidence substantiated by Scripture. Only then can we have a real debate instead of merely assuming without proof, as you have indicated thus far, that your ideas are superior and automatically the only ones in accordance with truth without offering the least shred of evidence that they are.