Security of the Believer Beliefs

HP: No one that I know denies there was a literal sacrifice for sin. That is not the essence of the literal payment theory. The literal payment theory is a grocery store model, i.e. a specific payment for a specific debt incurred by a specific sin. If you do not believe that is the model, you do not believe what in theological circles is known as the literal payment theory.

You claim on one hand that the atonement met the demands of His law, utilizing words such as ‘literal payment’ yet then appear to deny it as a literal payment. If there ‘is no "bank" and there is no "seller of sins" and there is no "Christ paying the Father for sin". I.e. No "grocery store for sins"………..then why speak of it as a literal ‘payment?’ It was not a payment, but rather a satisfaction of the debt that was made, a substitution ‘in place’ of the literal penalty. The literal penalty again is nothing short of eternal separation from God. Jesus did not suffer the literal penalty of sin. Jesus offered Himself as a substitutionary sacrifice that god accepted as a satisfaction of the demands of the law, not a literal payment of any kind.

HP: IMO it would be helpful to the reader to eliminate the word ‘literal payment’ all together when speaking of the atonement, due to the fact of those holding to the literal payment theory and its necessitated ramifications. Christ sufferings were as you say here, a substitutionary sacrifice, not a literal payment.

 

You may have a point in that view about literal payment - to avoid the grocery store concept.

However to your credit I will add this - if we consider "Atonement" and look at the completed process as described in Lev 16 - supposing that the high priestly work of Christ ENDED on the Cross instead of starting where Heb 7-10 shows it to start - following His ascension into heaven - then the Calvinist concept of Limited Atonement becomes very necessary. I bring this up because it is far more common to see both 3-point Calvinists AND Arminians to take that same view of Atonement as the 4 and 5 point Calvinists use -- ignoring the Lev 16 details about Christ's work as High Priest. Once you do that - the Calvinist conclusion for Limited Atonement is all but confirmed.

Atonement in God's Lev 16 model is the "final disposition of sin" there is "nothing left" once that process is completed. Both sinner and Savior have done the transaction - all has been decided - nothing more happens -- the sacrificial "year" is over.

People on this board may not "like" the fact that I insist on the Lev 16 facts about the High Priestly work of Christ included in the PROCESS of atonement - but logic demands that WITHOUT it - you DO have the limited atonement doctrine of 5 Point Calvinists! My Arminian brethren are slow to see that - and my 3 Point Calvinist friends seem reluctant to follow that argument through as well.

I take some measure of delight in seeing that you are close to seeing the point and understanding why I as an Arminian would HAVE to take that stand or else adopt the view of Limited Atonement.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I do believe that each specific sin incurrs a specific finite debt of torment and suffering in the lake of fire "second death".

I agree that many (most if not all) agree that Christ's death provided that payment - that "debt owed".

But the difference is - it is applied in an "atonement model" not in a grocery store model. In the true Grocery store model - payment made at the cross. All the wicked walk out of the store WITH salvation purchased it is THEIRs to do with as they please.

In the atonement model - we must enter into a relationship with our savior, die to self, become born again, walk in newness of life, become transformed by the renewing of our mind, persevere firm until the end.

All the little "perseverance" bits that don't show up at the grocery store after payment is made and groceries received.

There again we agree to a point.

I am not only Arminian - I am also one who rejects the immortal soul idea and the notion that eternal fire creates immortal fuel.

The model I follow is that in Luke 12:45-51 it is specific finite debt that is owed and paid by each one who suffers in hell. Some more than others.

In the Matt 18 model of forgiveness revoked - the one turned over to the torturers pay the very last cent of what was owed.

And then as in the Matt 10:28 model - both soul AND are destroyed - reducing them to ashes.

So - on the cross Christ pays finite debt - (a huge one granted - since it is for all the sins of the whole world for all of time) - but finite. And each person owes finite debt. Christ fully paid it - as in satisfying the actual debt of torment the law of God demanded in the 2nd death ordeal awaiting the wicked.

STILL the benefits of that payment are only transmitted through an "Atonement model" involving the repentance and confession of the sinners - as seen in Lev 16. It is not done in a grocery store model.

Jesus DID suffer the literal penalty of sin for us when it comes to "tasting of the sufferings of death for every man" Heb 2.

In Christ,

Bob

 

GE:

"The Seventh Day Adventist Church is neither Calvinist nor totally Arminian in theology. Recognising the virtues of each, we have endeavoured to assimilate that which to us appearsto be the clear teaching of the Word of God. ....."

But then the book goes on to defend its Arminian 'position' to perfection - page 406 and the whole rest!

'You quoting you' .... BobRyan, you should know better, but are the personification of SDA-ignorance.

 

BR:

".... if we consider "Atonement" and look at the completed process as described in Lev 16 - supposing that the high priestly work of Christ ENDED on the Cross instead of starting where Heb 7-10 shows it to start - following His ascension into heaven - ...."

GE:

"Completed", yet. "process"?

The atonement Christ made, was "substitutionary" ... yet, a "process"?

'It all adss up' ... to pure nonsensicalness.

".... the completed process as described in Lev 16 ...", was ended, quote: "ON THAT DAY".
In the Christ-event, atonement was "made", i.e., was ended, "in that day" of the "once for all" event of sacrifice AND offering through exaltation of the Christ, of the moving before the LORD of the First Sheaf Wave Offering through and in resurrection from the dead; of the "live goat" set free, at having availed an "atonement for the People", finished, "perfected" -- complete! The 'process' stopped here in highest fulfilment of every aspect of reconciliation and salvation, "WROUGHT" in Christ, by Christ, through Christ, "under Him the Head .... that filleth all in all"!


"

 

BR:

"where Heb 7-10 shows it to start "

7:1 King of peace .... returning from the slaughter ... and blessed
(7:4 Now consider how great this man was ...)
13:20 The God of peace that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus ... that Great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the Everlasting Covenant.

7:8 Here men die ... but THERE, HE of whom it is witnessed that He LIVETH

7:15 There ARISETH another Priest .... after the POWER OF AN ENDLESS LIFE

And so I can go on through the three chapters as through the whole Epistle, and won't find ONCE, what you claim.

 

HP: There are some watershed ideas that divide Arminianism from Calvinism. At the forefront of these distinction lies the issue of conditional or unconditional salvation. The Arminians believe that God has set forth conditions, without which, no one can or will be saved. The Calvinist, or those of like feather, believe that salvation is unconditional, and that there is nothing that man can or will do that in any way determines ones salvation.

The second issue that comes to mind has to do with the way the two camps approach the atonement. The Calvinist approach the atonement as a literal payment, and the Arminians approach it as a substitutionary sacrifice, as a satisfaction of a debt, not a literal payment of a debt as do the Calvinists.

These two issues I see as the real distinctions of importance. It is these two areas that are the impetus for TULIP and the distinctions between the two camps. Tell me what you feel about these two watershed issues, and I will tell you from the logical implications of these two points how you really believe from their necessitated logical conclusions concerning the other points, excluding the ‘T’.

 

How many times more that you won't heed plainest possible truth, that the atonement of reconciliation with God, of justification, of forgiveness of sins, of salvation wrought, was wrought, in Christ, and Him in High Priestly Office in the Sacrifice of Himself AND in the Offering of His Life before the LORD, but will keep on insisting, it all only started, not even here - not "when God raised Christ from the dead - but supposedly forty days after, its beginning only to be postponed another eighteen hundred odd years after?

 

HP:

"The Calvinist approach the atonement as a literal payment, and the Arminians approach it as a substitutionary sacrifice, as a satisfaction of a debt, not a literal payment of a debt as do the Calvinists."

Besides its error transgression isn't wanting in many words. The picture you give of Calvinism cannot even be called a caricature of it. As little as you know of Calvinism, as low is your estemation of it.

 

dryfuss says, 'Calvinism' says: "man has no choice".

But 'Calvinism' says, man does have a choice -- so conditioned by and upon his fallen nature it is 'free' only towards sin.

 

HP: Sorry GE. I cannot follow you. Can you possibly say it in another way? What is wrong with the picture I paint of the Calvinistic position? Do they not hold to the literal payment theory that I have alluded to, and do not they hold to a salvation without conditions?

 

Arminianism denies it; it denies this conditioned will of fallen man -- it denies man the only will it has!

 

HP: How is that so? Explain it to us.

 

HP said:

"The second issue that comes to mind has to do with the way the two camps approach the atonement. The Calvinist approach the atonement as a literal payment, and the Arminians approach it as a substitutionary sacrifice, as a satisfaction of a debt, not a literal payment of a debt as do the Calvinists."

GE:

The transgression in this is the false accusation against Calvinism -- the false accusation obvious and self-explaining in your own words.
At the same time your false accusation of what Calvinists do and do not do, expose your total ignorance of what Calvinists do and do believe or don't do and do not believe.

 

GE:

I have given to you nothing but an explanation of it. Sorry, but I cannot understand your inability to see it.

 

HP: You have no problem beating on the pulpit, but are short on substance GE. Tell the listener how it is that I have misrepresented the Calvinist position.

 

HP said, "the Arminians approach it (atonement) as a substitutionary sacrifice, as a satisfaction of a debt, not a literal payment of a debt as do the Calvinists."

It is a total misrepresentation of what Calvin or Calvinism believes or teaches. What you are saying is that Calvinism teaches atonement as not being "a substitutionary sacrifice", but as "a literal payment of a debt" (as were the two concepts mutually exclusive).

Now 'Calvinism' believes 'atonement' to be, or to be the equivalent of, the total work of Christ, and to be finished in and with and through Him, in dying and rising. All that remains, is for Christ to come again to gather unto Himself those the Father had given Him in resurrected, glorified life like unto His own.

 

HP: Just curious. Have you ever read Jonathan Edwards? Would you consider him to be a trustworthy apologist for the Calvinistic position on the matter?