I really like your closing paragraph about the double effect of Christ’s blood sacrifice. I will have to study/meditate on that more.

I have not read the history of this debate – I didn’t know that “double payment” was a long-time discussion, but found that very interesting. I should know that any question that comes to my own heart about theology is certainly not “new under the sun” and has been historically hashed out.

One problem as a layman is not knowing the name of the category of the history of a particular question. So I would not even know with what terms to “google” to find out.

I guess when I decided to go to graduate school in science instead of seminary (decided around 1964), I delayed my gain of knowledge in the history of theology. Oh well, in a few years I can talk with the original authors of those debates. Won’t that be wonderful? Or “then shall I know as I am known” will negate even the desire to discuss it – probably we will be so eternally enthralled and rejoicing in really seeing the glory of God with our own eyes that our “wonders” of the present age will seem dull and uninteresting.

One thought I will (maybe naively) add is that, as in the predestination discussions, our limitation in not being able to understand time – I believe, as C. S. Lewis, my great teacher, that God is outside of time and all parts of the timeline are “present” with Him at the same “time” – that our future events are equally present as the ones of the past.

So we cannot grasp the thought that He avoids “double payment” because He already knows for whom Christ’s ransom is needed – so we have to invent labels such as “particular/limited” atonement to find a way out of this paradox.

On another follow-up to Sunday, I recalled the John Piper quote of Jonathan Edwards: “God is glorified not only by his glory’s being seen, but by its being rejoiced in.” (See the message at ).

It brings much joy to my heart that you are conversing with me about these things – I have not had that kind of conversation in a long time – people in general are too busy and/or not interested in such matters these days. Thank you so much for taking time to talk with me. I can tell you have a real love for things eternal.

May the Lord bless you and keep you and Jessica this day in your walk before Him.

On the other side are those who suggest that particular/limited atonement means that the redeeming sacrifice of Christ was only made on behalf of those whom God chose and/or foreknew would turn to him.

There are alternative answers, however, so this traditional distinction comes close to being a false dichotomy. It is really only a “dilemma” for those who hold view the atonement as substitutionary (as I do).

For example, Anselm (and most conservative Catholics) believe that Christ’s sacrifice “satisfied” all that was required by the Father, thus freeing God to “have mercy on whomever he chooses.” (Some Catholics in the Augustinian tradition would ground God’s mercy-showing in election, while other Catholics suggest that God shows mercy to those whose conduct is worthy of receiving mercy.)

As far as evangelical alternatives, Andrew Fuller (a 19th Baptist) first coined the phrase “sufficient for all but efficient for the elect” in regard to the nature of the atonement. Others have rightly pointed out that this means the sacrifice of Christ was QUALITATIVELY infinite, that is, it was a sacrifice of such kind that it is capable of being applied to a limitless number of people. On the other hand, there are not a limitless number of people in existence. (Though the number is larger than we can know, it is fixed in the mind of God.) Therefore, we regard the payment of Christ to be “sufficient” for an infinite number while on being “efficient” on the elect (however your tradition defines that term).

But what of “double payment”? The answer, as recent scholars have pointed out, is simpler than we once thought. If Christ “paid” for sins objectively with a qualitatively infinite sacrifice, but a person subjectively rejects Christ’s work on their behalf, then they are choosing to face the just judgment of God on their on merits. The reason it isn’t “double” payment is because the blood of Christ functions in two ways, just as Romans 3 suggests. It not only makes God the justifier of those who have faith (as almost all agree), but it also demonstrates the real justice of God as well. In this way, every person who rejects the sacrifice made on their behalf essentially proves the justice of God by their very rejection. No blood is “wasted,” as it were, for Christ’s sacrifice has the double effect of saving those who trust in him and upholding the righteousness of God against all who reject his grace. Therefore, we are able to genuinely proclaim Christ as savior of all even if all will not be saved.

Great thoughts. Keep ‘em coming!

Scripture says, “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” ““I John 2:2

An unbeliever might ask, “Then, if this is true, why should I have to pay for my sins as well?” Or he might say, “Since my sins have been paid for, then I will go to heaven when I die, and so will everyone else.”

I answer this in my own heart in a way that is hinted at in “The Great Divorce” by C. S. Lewis: Unless I am born again, there is nothing that survives death with which to enter heaven. And more pertinently, Jesus himself told Nicodemas, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” John 3:5.

I guess the question, “Then if I die in my sins and have to pay for them, then isn’t that double payment – once by Christ, and then by me?” is easily answered by replying: but God foreknew who was to be saved and who was not, so, no, there is no double payment.

I’m mostly writing this out for my own clarification to settle these questions in my own heart, and maybe thereby I will be better equipped to help someone else who might be puzzled by these issues.

Blessings, everyone.
Boyd

I think your line of thinking is right on track.

I also think that Romans 3 bears on our reading of Romans 12 (since it is fair to assume that Paul expected his audience to have read the book in a normative manner). In Romans 3, Paul’s line of argument is essentially that the cross makes God both “just and the justifier” of whoever has faith in Christ. As such, no one can say “God is not just” unless they are overlooking the cross or, as is more often the case, downplaying the significance of the sacrifice made there by Jesus. Ironically, I think that taking revenge into our own hands has a similar effect.

Consider the following: When you have been genuinely wronged by someone you face one of two realities: (1) the person who has wronged you has been/will be redeemed by Christ, or (2) the person who has wronged you never will be redeemed (Logically, this exhausts all possibilities.)

If the person who wrongs you has been/will be redeemed, then all of their sins will be atoned for–including their sins against you. If you take vengeance into your own hands you are basically telling God, “Thanks for the cross. I believe it’s powerful enough to get people to heaven, it’s just not good enough to deal with all of their sins. So I’ll handle this one myself.” That sentiment, whether we are conscious of it or not, is exactly what our heart is assenting to whenever we take revenge into our own hands.

But what of the wrongs committed against you by someone who will never be redeemed? In this case you would still be trampling the justice of God. You’d be saying, in effect, “God your justice is not sufficient to deal with this sin, so I’ll handle it myself.”

So, either the person who wronged you has been completely forgiven by Jesus or the person who wronged you has chosen to pay for their sins themselves (e.g., God’s just judgment). In no case could you take revenge without trampling the grace/forgiveness of God on the one hand, or the justice/judgment of God on the other. And since God is both gracious and just, we should rejoice that the same grace that saved a wretched sinner like us is good enough to cover the sins of the persons who wrong us.

Hope this helped,
Doug