In discussing my humble analogy of coupon redemption, Pilgrim has raised the concern about how the payment for sin had to at the same time be full propitiation for sin. Apparently, my story lends the idea that a sufficient payment for sin for the non elect is equated with a real, applied payment, which of course raises the spectre of at least a modified form of universalism. Yikes.

I wondered what about the story wasn't working that would give rise to the concern, and I think I figured it out, and how to fix it.

The problem is one of currency. In my story, the landlord lays down hard cash in the exact amount of the coupon...real cash, out of pocket, paid in full.

From that, I attempted to show how a thief might abscond with the goods after payment had been made. That's how it was seen by Pilgrim (and other presumably). Though I tried to show that the money paid was only sufficient funds to procure the goods that, in the case of the non elect, are never transferred, nevertheless I think the fact that hard currency paying in full for the item makes for confusion. Certainly as Calvinists we only ever mean to say that the price was never applied to the eternally lost, only sufficient. Since my story spoke of full funds actually applied, for the value of the coupon, with the notion of possession/non-possesion coming later, I think the analogy was too weak.

The problem is that cash is breakable into discrete units....when you want to pay for an item of $29.98, then you pay not $90989.99, but $29.98. Who would plop down a whole bunch more when only exactly enough is needed? So when my landlord did pay the right amount in full then the question arises, how could I talk of a price sufficient to pay for everyone, and yet not really paid?

Christs sacrifice had immense value. We say it was sufficient to cover everyones sin, though it was only applied to cover the sins of the elect and it did so with great precision...all the elect were perfectly covered.

The only way the analogy will work is if I adjust the currency from a breakable kind of unit, like cash, into a singularly valueable unit, like a diamond, or pearl. It is as if my landlord only had one thing of value in his possession to offer when he went to the store to buy the coupon, a huge jewel worth millions. The store clerk would say, but sir, you could buy the whole country of people a turkey with this? Shall I dole out millions of coupons? No, he was only there to buy one coupon for me and the jewel, unlike the currency of cash, was indivisible. God had only one Son to offer, and Christ has only one body from which to shed blood, one indivisible body.

In this way, it's easier to see how the price of the sacrifice was sufficient for so many more and actually given up, but only applied by the specific will and plan of the landlord to the account of the specially chosen.

From there, the story picks up again, with God the Father gathering his possession of what is counted as his only, which by the work of the Spirit is assured even though the price would have sufficed for him to collect them all.

If this doesn't at least help solve that problem, well then I'm still open to suggestions ;-)

Barry