Arminianism is untenable

[Hammster]

...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.

Please stop trying to change the subject. If you don't think Christ bore the punishment for sins for all people, just say so.

 

[bling]

Not logical, but still better?

The other popular "theories" of atonement are even less logical. There is "substitution" involved, but who is standing in for you at the cross? Jesus or was it one of the disciples that ran off, Peter that denied him at that time, the Pharisees, the soldiers that nailed him to the cross or where you like one of those that just stood by and let it all happen?

 

[bling]

Since you aren't Arminian, you don't need to participate.

Thanks.

Arminian is not well defined and some would call me "arminian' so is this by your definition?

That is interesting since you put this thread in the debate section and only want one side of the debate presented.

 

[janxharris]

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?

If it was dealt with in the way that you seem to be implying then the elect (your definition) would be born saved.

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?

A coherent explanation of how men remain responsible even though God passed over them would suffice. Not on this thread though.

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

I'm not avoiding.

 

[janxharris]

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?

Obviously Christ died and took the punishment for all in a provisional sense. It's benefits will only be applied to believers.

 

[janxharris]

Please stop trying to change the subject. If you don't think Christ bore the punishment for sins for all people, just say so.

It is on subject - provision equates to Christ dying for all.

 

[janxharris]

The other popular "theories" of atonement are even less logical. There is "substitution" involved, but who is standing in for you at the cross? Jesus or was it one of the disciples that ran off, Peter that denied him at that time, the Pharisees, the soldiers that nailed him to the cross or where you like one of those that just stood by and let it all happen?

I'm not following that which I have emboldened.

 

[Hammster]

Arminian is not well defined and some would call me "arminian' so is this by your definition?

That is interesting since you put this thread in the debate section and only want one side of the debate presented.

From everything you've ever posted, I would never call you Arminian.

 

[Hammster]

Obviously Christ died and took the punishment for all in a provisional sense. It's benefits will only be applied to believers.

By "obviously" you mean it has to be because it's the only way it fits your theology. So in Arminianism, Jesus only kinda took the punishment, depending on us. That just puts the cross in limbo.

 

[janxharris]

By "obviously" you mean it has to be because it's the only way it fits your theology. So in Arminianism, Jesus only kinda took the punishment, depending on us. That just puts the cross in limbo.

Then why aren't your elect born saved? Kinda for me and kinda for you too.

 

[Hammster]

Then why aren't your elect born saved? Kinda for me and kinda for you too.

We still aren't talking about Calvinism. Can your theology not stand on it's own?

 

[Skala]

e.

The OP relies on an assumed and erroneous view of the atonement and is thus a straw man.

Well, it relies on substitutionary atonement.

Are you saying that substitutionary atonement is erroneous?

 

[Skala]

Yes.

Isaiah 53:4-6
Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

In that context, who is the "our"?
Hint: go back a few chapters.

Janx, have you ever considered that you just make assumptions without even realizing? Here, you assumed that "our" was a reference to the entire human race. Why did you do that, if not because of tradition?

 

[Skala]

Not really, but that is closer to Catholic belief than Calvinism, which is heresy.

There is a spectrum of acceptable belief regarding the balance of grace and free will for Catholics. Arminianism falls within that spectrum, five points Calvinism does not.

For a Catholic, it is heresy to say that God predestines anyone to Hell, but it is also heresy to say that we can attain heaven by our own merits alone without God's grace.

Because of Trent, everyone who isn't Roman Catholic is a heretic.

Also, many Roman Catholics don't agree with Trent, which makes them heretics, too.
So your accusations of heresy aren't very threatening.

 

[Skala]

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.

False. In Calvinism, justification is by faith, not by election.


More strawmen from you, janx?

 

[Skala]

Then why aren't your elect born saved? Kinda for me and kinda for you too.

Because justification is by faith, not by election.

 

[nobdysfool]

If it was dealt with in the way that you seem to be implying then the elect (your definition) would be born saved.

As has been pointed out election is not salvation. being justified by faith is. and you avoided the question I asked, as you have been you really don't want to answer that question honestly, do you? Here it is again so you don't have to expend effort to find it:

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?

It's not a hard question. Why won't you answer it?

A coherent explanation of how men remain responsible even though God passed over them would suffice. Not on this thread though.

Make up your mind.

I'm not avoiding.

You most certainly are, sir.

 

[catholichomeschooler]

Because of Trent, everyone who isn't Roman Catholic is a heretic.

Also, many Roman Catholics don't agree with Trent, which makes them heretics, too.
So your accusations of heresy aren't very threatening.

Heresy is defined as a teaching contradicting Church authority.

A Calvinist heresy is not necessarily the same as a Catholic heresy. It depends on what you regard as your authority.

However, the claim that God predestines some men to Hell contradicts scripture, which tells us that God wants all men to be saved and that he is glad when the wicked repent.

 

[janxharris]

We still aren't talking about Calvinism. Can your theology not stand on it's own?

Okay, I'll endeavour not to mention Calvinism on this thread.

If Christ paid in full actually, rather than potentially, then those whom He died for would be born saved would they not?

 

[janxharris]

Well, it relies on substitutionary atonement.

Are you saying that substitutionary atonement is erroneous?

I'm saying that the OP's assumed definition is incorrect.