Stanley Fish is a great read in the NYT. Today's piece is an example: he examines the allegorical and literal role that money plays in the Christian faith and doctrines.
One thing I've always found hilarious is the idea that Jesus paid for all men's sins on the cross (c.f., Matt 18:14, 1 John 2:2, &c.) yet that one must "accept" such a work in order to realize it. Now I know this doesn't apply to Calvinists, but instead to Arminian non-universalists. The logic of the claim is horrible to say that your "free will" is needed in "accepting" a work done on your behalf if you don't have the authority to order the work done in the first place.
True, if I say I will build a deck onto your back porch, I need your permission to do this work for you, because you are legally in charge of the property and must approve of the work to be done.
But in the case of "paying off your (sin) debts" wouldn't God be the legal authority and thus be the sole arbitrer of approval for the work to be done? In fact the Bible plainly claims that God foreordained the act of Redemption (c.f. Rev. 13:8, &c.), and so it's solely up to God as to whether or not a particular work (the payment of all men's sins) would/could be done.
It's sort of like me saying that I'm going down to the bank to pay off your mortgage, but you say, "What if I don't accept your payment?" The point is, the one who holds the debt is the banker, and he will accept my payment. The act of clearing your debt is collaborative only between the banker and the one paying the debt. Your cooperation is unnecessary, should the banker have authority over how the debt is discharged.
Does God not have authority over the payment of sin?
I suppose that's why a lot of Christians accept universal salvation.
