Wednesday, 7 August 2013

Debt

THE DEBT IS PAID

There is an non Calvinist/Arminian argument that runs like this: A man is in great debt and so in danger of going to the Debtor's prison. Another pays his debt in full - but the man thus relieved refuses to believe it. All the time, he continues to worry himself well nigh into the grave. Yet, at the same time, his great debt has been paid already. 

THE ARGUMENT CONTINUES: So with every last sinner ever born, including total reprobates in Hell, like Cain, Esau, Pharaoh, Haman, Judas etc. Christ paid their debt in full when He made atonement upon the Cross, but many sinners refuse to believe it.

BUT NOW WHAT?  Let's think about the creditor. Will he employ the services of a debt collector because he sees the anxious sinner worrying every day? I say not. Within the obvious limitations of the illustration, what does he care about the feelings of the one whose debt is now paid? He is a creditor, not a social worker. The debt is paid and therefore (from that point of view) he is happy. The debt is paid and so he cannot go to the court and seek to have the one formerly in debt committed to a debtor's prison. The case would never be heard if the court clerk is doing his duty.

"Is the debt paid?"
"Yes, My Lord."
"Well, what are you doing here?"
"I'm not too sure, My Lord..."
"Case Dismissed"

No debt. No debt collector. No court. No prison. And (to apply it to our evangelical theology) No Hell.

Is this post flawed? If so - where? 


Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,

32 comments:

  1. JohnBrianMck7 August 2013 at 12:24

    The post is not flawed. That is why those who reject particular redemption use the phrase - God has made salvation POSSIBLE for all. They must weaken the effect of Christ's suffering as by itself it doesn't secure anyone's salvation and yet they will deny that is what they do.

    They insist that unregenerate man is only 'mostly dead' thus raising man at the same time they are lowering Christ, and all the while insisting that they are doing neither.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous7 August 2013 at 21:30

    This makes a good point. In the West (elsewhere too?) we have something in our courts whereby you cannot be tried twice for the same crime. If this is true in sinful human courts, how much more God's? So to say that someone whose debt is already paid must then suffer eternally for it makes absolutely no sense.

    The other truth that is related to this is the teaching of the "cup" which Jesus Christ drank. He shrank from drinking the cup and asks the Lord if it may be taken from Him. The idea that this is just shrinking from death is not the whole picture. If you do a word search on the word cup in both the testaments, you find that it refers to God's wrath. Jesus drank the cup of divine wrath for the sinners He came to save. How could it be possible that He drank the cup of divine wrath and yet there are still some who go to hell to suffer for it as well?

    And so you get into the whole purpose for Christ's death in the first place, and also the extent of it. This is a huge subject, as are so many scriptural truths.

    ReplyDelete
  3. weecalvin15097 August 2013 at 22:07

    Thanks for your comments. I agree with you both. I know I'll hardly qualify for "Blog of the Year" but is it significant that there is no non Calvinist/Arminian response to this post? Perhaps not. OTOH: Perhaps so. Again, is this post flawed? If so - where?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Kc8 August 2013 at 12:04

    Colin,

    I normally try to avoid analogies, but I know you're serious when you ask if I see any flaws so I'll assume the advocates role on this one.
    ;-)

    What is the debt? Who is the creditor and, most importantly, who is the one who pays the debt. Is “no hell” the purpose for him paying the debt? Is the debt forgiveness a once and for all deal or will the debtor need to come back for more?

    I'll do my best to try and keep up! ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  5. weecalvin15098 August 2013 at 12:45

    Hi Kc,

    Thanks for dropping in. In the analogy (as I understand it)

    The debt is our sins against God i.e. their damning guilt
    The creditor is God Himself
    The Debt payer is Christ who made atonement for our sins
    Salvation is much more than “No Hell” but includes it
    Justification is “a once for all deal” (as you put it)
    Although the justified one is encouraged to come again and again to seek forgiveness (as in the Lord’s Prayer) yet it is not to be justified which is total and 100% at the point of believing.

    These things being so, I am asking how can a man whose debt has been paid in full for each and every sinner (as our Non Calvinist friends assure us) if many of them still end up in the debtor’s prison house i.e. Hell? If the debt was paid, then there is no honest court in the land going to convict. The one relieved of the debt can still cry himself to sleep every night with anxiety, but (again) the ledger is there to read. “Paid in Full” means that the cell remains empty.

    Obviously the illustration has its limitations. I can see a theological question arise here. Is one relieved of his debt whether he acknowledges it or not? IOW Are the elect (for whom Christ died) forgiven even if they never repent and believe the gospel?

    Only if we disconnect the work of the Son of God on the Cross from the saving work of the Spirit of God in the heart. This is something which the Bible does not do. Christ didn’t come to make salvation possible, as one of the other friends above points out. He came to actually save His people from their sins and raise them up at the last day (Conflation of Matt 1:21/John 6) Thus He shall see the travail of His soul and be satisfied when He by His knowledge, shall justify many (Isaiah 53)

    Regards,

    ReplyDelete
  6. weecalvin15098 August 2013 at 12:47

    Oops! Should have added the phrase: "...and therefore the elect will be drawn through the gospel being preached and so repent and believe that same gospel." #ClosingUpALoopHole

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kc8 August 2013 at 13:48

    Colin,

    Thanks again for another wonderful opportunity. I really have missed our discussions!

    Wouldn't it be fair to conclude that if justification = “no hell” then the premise that "no sin" = “no hell” is faulty?

    ReplyDelete
  8. weecalvin15098 August 2013 at 13:52

    Kc

    You lose me there with that one. If a man did not sin, then he would not be in Hell. Hell is the wage of sin (Romans 6:23) If a man is justified, then he is accounted as if he had never sinned i.e. he is accounted as righteous, and therefore no Hell. I can't see any problem with that.

    Regards,

    ReplyDelete
  9. Kc8 August 2013 at 14:21

    Colin,

    Would you then say that justification = “No sin” and therefore “no hell”?.

    (I have to run the Misses to the Dentist but I'll continue in a few hours if you allow. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. weecalvin15098 August 2013 at 14:28

      Kc,

      In God's accounts, there is no sin for the justified soul. He is "accepted in the Beloved" (Eph 1:6) i.e. Christ. Therefore for him, there is no hell because (going back to the original article) the debt has been paid in full. If the debt is paid, then there is no Hell, b/c there is condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1) - the believer no longer condemned (John 5:24)& therefore no longer abiding under the wrath of God (John 3:36)

      Really is simple Evangelical theology is it not? ;o)

      Regards,

      P/s I hope, for the sake of your wife, that the "few hours" isn't all spent in the dentist's chair...

      Delete
  10. Kc8 August 2013 at 16:45

    Colin,

    Thankfully no, only an hour or so. The rest was in preparation and transit. ;-)

    To re-cap thus far: Are you saying that “no hell” = “no sin” = “justification” = “accepted in Christ”?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. weecalvin15098 August 2013 at 16:55

      Kc, If I read you right, then I affirm.

      Regards,

      Delete
  11. Kc8 August 2013 at 17:19

    Colin,

    How then is one found accepted in Christ?

    ReplyDelete
  12. weecalvin15098 August 2013 at 22:21

    Kc,

    The Christian was chosen in Christ from before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4) Experimentally, the sinner is found "accepted in Christ" upon that act of saving faith which flows from his having been chosen in Christ.

    Regards,

    ReplyDelete
  13. Kc9 August 2013 at 10:44

    Good morning Colin,

    Would you say then that “no debt” = ”no hell” = ….. = “chosen in Christ” ?

    If so then when is/was the debt paid ?

    ReplyDelete
  14. weecalvin15099 August 2013 at 11:00

    Good morning Kc,

    You're up early! Surely this conversation didn't keep you awake all night? ;o)

    Not sure why you left the blank in your formula above. The debt was actually paid on Calvary's Cross. This had been planned in the decree of God from eternity past. It's principle was applied to the OT believers i.e. those forgiven before Calvary. Experimentally, the application of the paid debt is not applied to the believer until the moment he believes. Until then, He is still a child of wrath even as others, although the decree of God planned that there would be a day and a hour when this would be cease to be i.e. when he repents and believes the gospel.

    I assume that you are in complete agreement with me so far and are just looking someone to articulate it all for you ;o)

    Regards,

    ReplyDelete
  15. Kc9 August 2013 at 11:19

    Colin,

    I can say we agree in Spirit! ;-) BTW I'm early to bed most nights too.

    So would the Calvinist then agree that there are those whose debt has been paid in full and yet refuse to believe it? It seems the distinction between the Calvinist and the non-Calvinist/Arminian concerns the extent of debt payment and the eventual outcome of those whose debt has been paid. Am I correct thus far?

    ReplyDelete
  16. weecalvin15099 August 2013 at 12:09

    Kc,

    You are correct thus far. Calvinism believes that all for whom the debt is paid will come to believe it. Non Calvinism/Arminianism disagree and believe that millions of those debt has been paid on the Cross will never believe it and go to Hell. The article asks on what basis? The unbelief of the poor man in the illustration cannot make void the fact that his debt is paid. The Creditor isn't going to send in the debt collectors or go to court. He will not see the inside of a debtor's prison. There is no case. The debt is paid, whether he dances a jig - no inferences please ;o) - or weeps himself to sleep every night until he dies.

    Obviously (as said before) there are limitations to the illustration. We are not examining the subjective end of things here - the faith of the sinner - but the objective i.e. what Christ actually did on the Cross.

    Regards,

    ReplyDelete
  17. Kc9 August 2013 at 12:51

    Colin,

    Then I think you've answered your question. The flaw in the post is the obvious limitation of the illustration.

    Objectively Christ is the propitiation for, not only our sins, but the sins of the whole world (1st John 2:2) and subjectively the redeemer of whosoever believes in Him (John 3ff). Objectively His righteousness is upon all men unto justification of life (Romans 5:18), but subjectively life is given to those who believe in Him.

    By this I'm now sure we're in complete agreement. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. weecalvin15099 August 2013 at 13:20

      Kc,

      So a sinner, whose debt is paid in full, will still go the debtor's prison for a debt that has already been paid?

      Regards,

      Delete
  18. Kc9 August 2013 at 13:45

    Colin,

    Here again the limitations of the illustration precludes any further consideration.

    I think the key for my perspective is the object of Christ' atonement. If the object is to get “no hell” for men then I would agree your perspective makes perfect sense. From my perspective the object of His atonement was to satisfy the will of the Father.

    I think Romans 5 fully explains both the objective and subjective aspect of Christ' obedience. Objectively all men were brought under condemnation through Adam but subjectively not all men are condemned. Objectively by Christ' righteousness the free gift is upon all men unto justification of life but subjectively not all men will have life.

    ReplyDelete
  19. weecalvin15099 August 2013 at 14:38

    Kc,

    Then was Christ's work largely potential rather than actual i.e. (as pointed out by Mr McKillop above) is it more what was on offer rather than what was actually achieved? If the sins of the reprobate was actually atoned for, then the law is satisfied and he can go free.

    Appreciate your time and thoughts on this one,

    Regards,

    ReplyDelete
  20. Kc9 August 2013 at 15:07

    Colin,

    Brother you well know I consider it a great honor and privilege to discuss these things with you.

    Since I consider that Christ' work was to do the will of the Father then I see it is as fully complete and perfectly accomplished. He did not potentially fulfill the will of the Father. He fully accomplished it. With respect to potentiality and sin, I think we both agree there is only one sin that cannot be forgiven.

    ReplyDelete
  21. weecalvin15099 August 2013 at 15:49

    Kc,

    It is true that there is only one sin that cannot ever be forgiven, but I am unaware of anywhere in Scripture where God forgives all the other sins, only to leave one remaining. It is as murderers, fornicators etc., (specific sins) that the unpardoned wicked cannot enter the kingdom God (1 Corinthians 6:9) For these things (individual unpardoned sins) comes the wrath of God etc (Colossians 3:5)

    Another approach, would Jesus atone for sins that He knew beforehand would never be repented of?

    Regards,

    ReplyDelete
  22. Kc9 August 2013 at 16:17

    Colin,

    I think we agree with regard to the unpardonable sin. I understand that to be the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit Who testifies concerning Christ.

    I am honestly afraid to judge the righteousness of God. If pressed I would say I could understand that if God wanted to demonstrate His righteousness in His providence for all His creation then yes, but I am still only persuaded that Christ did the will of the Father.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. weecalvin15099 August 2013 at 22:45

      Kc,

      It has been a good discussion. I appreciate your stating of your views. maybe time to move on, though feel free to drop us i.e. any one who bothers reading this blog ;o) a comment if and when the notion takes you.

      I really miss Rose's Reasonings. Those were good days.

      Regards,

      Delete
  23. Kc10 August 2013 at 14:35

    Colin,

    You've been a blessing to me, as always. I appreciate the open door and I'll be reading (as always) and watching for another request for comment. ;-)

    May God continue to bless you and your family and all of your efforts on behalf of our Lord and His Church.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous11 August 2013 at 02:27

    I am confused, Kc. You say that the purpose of the debt being paid was to fulfull the will of the Father, but wasn't about keeping sinners out of hell.

    But why did the Father require the debt to be paid? Christ was sinless, so He didn't die for His own sins. For whose then did he die? Or what was He doing on the cross? What was its purpose?

    If Christ did not die in order that sinners would not go to hell, then why do the scriptures specifically use the word 'salvation' to describe what we need? Saved from what?

    The way you describe it, it all sounds sort of 'theoretical' rather than practical which is the way that the scriptures outline salvation.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Kc12 August 2013 at 15:11

    Anonymous,

    Thanks so much for the reply. I am grateful that my position appears theoretical. I would never want my theological position to be considered God's Word but I strive to insure that it's grounded in the Scripture. I think it's critical for us all to be able to make the distinction between “thus saith the Lord” and “my understanding is”.

    If we assume an anthropological position, as I intimated to Colin previously, and frame the Atonement from the perspective that it's all about “my salvation” then it's easy to assume that the Atonement need only be limited to those who are saved. If, however, we perceive that the Atonement is a divine transaction between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit having enormous consequence on all things then we can remain open to see those things in the Scripture.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous13 August 2013 at 21:38

    Yes I absolutely agree that we ought to use all of scripture, not our own salvation experience to determine what the Bible teaches about salvation. We also do not want to use our theoretical notions to determine truth, but scripture alone.

    I also wholeheartedly agree that The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were all involved in a divine transaction to bring salvation to sinners.

    However you did not answer my questions...

    ReplyDelete
  27. Kc19 August 2013 at 10:13

    Anonymous,

    Please forgive me. I read numerous questions that I perceived as pointing to a specific “theme” concerning the atonement and it was that theme to which I attempted to reply. I'm not sure I could properly address all of your questions in a blog reply.

    If your specific question is “Did Christ die for my sin?” then my answer is a resounding yes as well as for mine and for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).

    ReplyDelete
  28. weecalvin150919 August 2013 at 10:38

    Sorry for the delay in posting "Anon's" 13th August reply. I was away from my computer for a few days. I think, "Anon" (to be fair to Kc and myself) that we would need a name at this stage. It is one thing passing comment on the way past, but a prolonged debate is another. It is good to be able to identify whom we are speaking with here. Thanks to you both for continuing on the discussion. I appreciate your time and efforts.

    ReplyDelete

All are welcome to comment here provided that the usual principles of Christian comment e.g. politeness etc. are observed.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)