[P-Marlowe]

If the Lord has paid the legal penalty for every man

I think it is more accurate to say that he has paid the penalty for every sin. But in order to receive a pardon, you have to accept the terms of the pardon. The terms of salvation are that you must believe and receive. The pardon is there for the taking, but unless you abide by the terms of the pardon, you will be punished for your sins.

Why is there a condemnation for any man? Because the atonement is only effacacious to those who believe. Whosoever believes in him. But you can't get away from the prior term that God loved the world. All men were included in the potential for salvation, but only those who believe are entitled to claim the effect of that love. If-then. Those are the rules. Follow them.

Sufficient for all, effective for some.

[CCWoody]

I think it is more accurate to say that he has paid the penalty for every sin. But in order to receive a pardon, you have to accept the terms of the pardon. The terms of salvation are that you must believe and receive. The pardon is there for the taking, but unless you abide by the terms of the pardon, you will be punished for your sins. ~ P-Marlowe

Ah, here is the rub:


Calvinism: Those for which the Lord has made an oblation for sin are no longer guilty. The Atonement itself is sufficient.

Arminianism: Those for which the Lord has made an oblation for sin are still guilty. The Atonement itself is insufficient.

Thank you, Marlowe, for candidly admitting what we Calvinists have stated about the non-Calvinists all along, only to receive the wailing and gnashing of teeth for our efforts. You too, have chosen to abandon the Penal Substitution Atonement and have followed the path of all false teachers who have figured out that something must give in their theology.

For, you have admitted that salvation is ultimately dependent upon what "you have to..." do do secure salvation. IOW, Christ's work upon the cross is unable to save a single soul. Man must complete that work for any salvation to be accomplished. God has done all He can do and now it is up to man.

But, then, man is the one who gets the glory of being the magic that makes salvation happen.

Unfortunately, I'd wager that you are unable to find any credible source for this contract acceptance theory of the Atonement. If you ask me, it sounds very much like what that heretic Grotius taught.

And, it is clearly not scriptural:


• And Iesus answered, and saide vnto him, Simon, I haue somewhat to say vnto thee. And he said, Master, say on. There was a certaine lender which had two detters: the one ought fiue hundreth pence, and the other fiftie: When they had nothing to pay, he forgaue them both: Which of them therefore, tell mee, will loue him most? Simon answered, and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgaue most. And he said vnto him, Thou hast truely iudged.
  (Luk 7:40-43 GB)

Don't you find it the least bit disconcerting to your contract theory of the Atonement that the Lord never mentions any "terms of the pardon" when talking about the forgiveness of their debt?

Unfortunately, unless you can find this phantom "terms of the pardon" clause in the salvation contract in the Scriptures, I must declare what you have given us to be a thing hated.


• By thy precepts I haue gotten vnderstanding: therefore I hate all the wayes of falshoode.
  (Psa 119:104 GB)

Why is there a condemnation for any man? Because the atonement is only effacacious to those who believe. Whosoever believes in him. But you can't get away from the prior term that God loved the world. All men were included in the potential for salvation, but only those who believe are entitled to claim the effect of that love. If-then. Those are the rules. Follow them. ~ P-Marlowe

Before you jump too far afield with your "terms of the pardon" contract fantasy land theology, don't you think you ought to spell it out for us in black and white? Sigh!

But, anyway.... There is a glaringly huge problem with what you are saying. I notice you use a correct word for the Atonement when you say efficatious. Unfortunately, since you have already flatly declared to us that the Atonement itself is INefficatious in that it is unable to save any man for the penalty has been paid by it for "every sin." Else, if the Atonement is efficatious, then you would be a Universalist heretic, fully incuring the Anathema of Revelation upon yourself.

And, even though the very words "Christ died to save all men" seem to have an air of majesty worthy of God, they clearly reveal the ineptitude of a bumbling incompetent. Strip the veneer away and you are left with a helpless, effeminate being who commands the respect of no really thoughtful man. To say that God the Father has purposed the salvation of all mankind, that God the Son died with the express intention of saving the whole human race, and that God the Holy Spirit is now seeking to win the world to Christ; when, as a matter of common observation, it is apparent that the great majority of our fellowmen are dying in sin, and passing into a hopeless eternity; is to say that...
• God the Father is disappointed,...
• that God the Son is dissatisfied,...
• and that God the Holy Spirit is defeated.
To argue that God has purposed to save all mankind, but that the majority of men will not let Him save them, is to insist that the will of the Creator is impotent, and that the will of the creature is omnipotent.

God is now practically a helpless Spectator before the sin and suffering entailed by Adam's fall. It is to repudiate the express declaration of Holy Writ, namely,...
• Surely the rage of man shall turne to thy praise: the remnant of the rage shalt thou restrayne.
  (Psa 76:10 GB)

But, I digress in my disguist of this miserable creature you posit is worthy of praise....

Your contract theory maintains that the inefficacious and resistible grace merely makes salvation possible and the final result of salvation comes NOT from the bestowal of saving grace, which is a ludicrous contradiction, but from the efficacious act of the natural fallen MAN improving the "possible salvation" to an actual salvation.

In order for this theory to be proved there then must be some inequality in the mix that will determine the final outcome of either salvation or damnation. If grace is the inequality, then the Reformed theologians position is correct and your "terms of the pardon" crap is overthrown by the concession. If it is in the efficacious act of the natural fallen MAN improving the "possible salvation" to an actual salvation through faith that he supplies, then salvation is not by grace. Salvation is ultimately by the efficacious act of the natural fallen MAN.

So, answer me this simple question; is the inequality:



1. the GRACE of God?

2. the efficacious act of the natural fallen MAN?

Woody. (with apologies to Pink)