Arminianism is untenable

[catholichomeschooler]

I believe man reaps what he sows. That's why we need the gospel. That's grace.

So you don't believe in unconditional election?

I thought you were a Calvinist.

 

[pdudgeon]

If I said whenever someone was thirsty, they got a drink of water, that would imply that all those who were thirsty got a drink. The word "all" doesn't need to be there.

Your argument from silence fails.

how large was your thirsty sample group? if it was a group of 10 people and they all got a drink of water, then you would have some convincing data.

on the other hand, if one person from your sample group got water and the others opted for a mug of root beer, it would be misleading to say that all those who were thirsty got a drink of water, when in fact all of them got a drink of something wet. All liquid is not necessarily water.

The bible itself is never misleading. but sometimes our memories of scripture can be honestly mistaken. There are times when we are certain that it says one thing only to find that what we think we remember is not actually how the verses read.

Your arguement fails for lack of confirming data.
to hold an opinion is one thing, but to prove a supposition is quite another.

 

[Hammster]

So you don't believe in unconditional election?

I thought you were a Calvinist.

I have no idea where you got that. But this thread isn't about Calvinism. Or me.

 

[janxharris]

Another giant non sequitur. It's really what I expected since it's what you do whenever this subject comes up. You never actually address the issue, but try to deflect.

I am dealing with the OP.

Arminians insist that Jesus took the punishment for all sins.

See God's abundant provision of Romans 5:17

Yet, they admit that there are people in hell because of their sins.

Yes, John 8:24.

This makes God disingenuous because He punishes people for sins that His Son already paid for.

Since your so called elect are born dead in their sins then this tells us something about what actually occurred at the cross - it defines the atonement in some way.

 

[Hammster]

how large was your thirsty sample group? if it was a group of 10 people and they all got a drink of water, then you would have some convincing data.

on the other hand, if one person from your sample group got water and the others opted for a mug of root beer, it would be misleading to say that all those who were thirsty got a drink of water, when in fact all of them got a drink of something wet. All liquid is not necessarily water.

The bible itself is never misleading. but sometimes our memories of scripture can be honestly mistaken. There are times when we are certain that it says one thing only to find that what we think we remember is not actually how the verses read.

Your arguement fails for lack of confirming data.

Your attempt at refutation fails for trying to make an argument stand on all fours. Hopefully you don't do the sane with parables.

As for the verse, I quoted it. More than once.

 

[Hammster]

I am dealing with the OP.

Arminians insist that Jesus took the punishment for all sins.

See God's abundant provision of Romans 5:17

Yet, they admit that there are people in hell because of their sins.

Yes, John 8:24.

This makes God disingenuous because He punishes people for sins that His Son already paid for.

Since your so called elect are born dead in their sins then this tells us something about what actually occurred at the cross - it defines the atonement in some way.

And once again, you pretend to deal with it, but you can't do so without somehow bringing in Calvinism. Why are people in hell being punished for sins that Christ took the punishment for? That's what you are trying desperately to avoid answering.

 

[pdudgeon]

Your attempt at refutation fails for trying to make an argument stand on all fours. Hopefully you don't do the same with parables....

LOL, standing on all fours? well at least it was well-balanced, and not leaning one way or the other

 

[Ignatius21]

Amazing how there's only one issue that's ever debated here. Just observing.

 

[Hammster]

Amazing how there's only one issue that's ever debated here. Just observing.

That's because unlimited atonement is the only thing that most non-Calvinists agree on.

 

[janxharris]

And once again, you pretend to deal with it, but you can't do so without somehow bringing in Calvinism. Why are people in hell being punished for sins that Christ took the punishment for? That's what you are trying desperately to avoid answering.

If the death and punishment Christ took on our behalf amounted to that which your OP implies, then your elect would be born sinless. Since they are not, then your implied definition is incorrect and your OP is a straw man.

EmSw was right to ask about the nature of Christ's punishment.

 

[janxharris]

And once again, you pretend to deal with it, but you can't do so without somehow bringing in Calvinism. Why are people in hell being punished for sins that Christ took the punishment for? That's what you are trying desperately to avoid answering.

Does 'abundant provision of grace' satisfactorily describe limited atonement? Abundant, but nevertheless, limited and particular?

Paul is clear that it is those that receive the gift who will live. Paul is also clear that all men were provided for:

Romans 5:18
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.

Once again, scripture does not align with your theology.

 

[Hammster]

If the death and punishment Christ took on our behalf amounted to that which your OP implies, then your elect would be born sinless. Since they are not, then your implied definition is incorrect and your OP is a straw man.

EmSw was right to ask about the nature of Christ's punishment.

Once again, you prove my point that you cannot defend or support your view without bringing up Calvinism.

Jan, why are people in hell punished for sins that Christ already took the punishment for?

 

[Hammster]

Does 'abundant provision of grace' satisfactorily describe limited atonement? Abundant, but nevertheless, limited and particular?

Paul is clear that it is those that receive the gift who will live. Paul is also clear that all men were provided for:

Romans 5:18
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.

Once again, scripture does not align with your theology.

Please stop derailing the thread by bringing up Calvinism. That's not what it's about.

 

[janxharris]

Please stop derailing the thread by bringing up Calvinism. That's not what it's about.

I'm not derailing.
Abundant provision equates to Jesus providing for all. Your implied definition of the atonement cannot be correct but I won't repeat why since you don't want me to mention Calvinism.

 

[janxharris]

Jan, why are people in hell punished for sins that Christ already took the punishment for?

They rejected the gift.

Your definition of Christ's atonement - his punishment - is in error.

 

[Hammster]

They rejected the gift.

Your definition of Christ's atonement - his punishment - is in error.

My definition is in error? Have you not admitted that Christ took the punishment for sin for all people?

www.christianforums.com/t7836789-5/#post66155332#post66155332

 

[janxharris]

My definition is in error? Have you not admitted that Christ took the punishment for sin for all people?

www.christianforums.com/t7836789-5/#post66155332#post66155332

You have refused to discuss exactly what it means. EmSw tried to engage you but you would not do so.

 

[janxharris]

...how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

The OP is at odds with this.

 

[nobdysfool]

Jan, you say they are in hell because they rejected the gift. Is that not a sin? If so, wasn't that sin dealt with for all men, as you claim? If it has been dealt with, how can they be held accountable a second time?

You are so desperate to bring charges against Calvinism that you will go to any extreme, and say anything to do so. Wasn't it you who said that if you found that Calvinism was actually true (in your estimation), that you would abandon the faith? What does that say about your faith?

It says that your faith is in your own perceptions, rather than in Christ. Let God be true, and every man found to be a liar. That would include you, if you truly believed that. Your perceptions and biases don't matter. What matters is God and His Word. If God shows you that you have been wrong, what will you do?

Stop making this about Calvinism, and answer Hammster's question. Stop avoiding the implications of your own theology.

 

[Hammster]

You have refused to discuss exactly what it means. EmSw tried to engage you but you would not do so.

So now this game? You didn't seem to have a problem here:

www.christianforums.com/t7836789-5/#post66155332#post66155332

Let's go with what you think you mean in the above post. According to your understanding of punishment, did Christ take the punishment for all mankind on the cross? According to you, what does that mean?