Arminianism is untenable

[nobdysfool]

Jan is trying to tie our questioning of the Arminian view of the Atonement with his false accusation that Calvinists are lacking integrity in preaching the Gospel. That's called desperation. He won't answer my questions.

 

[Josephus]

Yes. But what does that have to do with propitiation?

What does being saved have to do with becoming a bride?

 

[Hammster]

What does being saved have to do with becoming a bride?

Huh? That didn't answer my question.

 

[tall73]

So it's only intended to cover a limited amount of people?

Clarify the question please. Are you asking if the Day of Atonement service was only supposed to cover a part of the Israelites?

 

[tall73]

If He is a propitiation for everyone, then God's wrath falls on no one.

If He is a sacrifice available to all, and all do not avail themselves, then God's wrath falls on those who don't avail themselves.

Just as in the previous thread you decided not to address the Hebrews text by the way. It makes it clear that this person who was lost was nonetheless profaning the blood of the covenant, and outraging the Spirit of grace.

How can that be if the the blood never was intended for him and the grace was never provided for him?



Heb 10:28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses.
Heb 10:29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?
Heb 10:30 For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge his people."
Heb 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

 

[Hammster]

Clarify the question please. Are you asking if the Day of Atonement service was only supposed to cover a part of the Israelites?

No. It covered all it was intended to cover, namely God's chosen people. Thankfully Paul clarified that not all were Israel who were descended from Abraham.

 

[Hammster]

If He is a sacrifice available to all, and all do not avail themselves, then God's wrath falls on those who don't avail themselves.

Just as in the previous thread you decided not to address the Hebrews text by the way. It makes it clear that this person who was lost was nonetheless profaning the blood of the covenant, and outraging the Spirit of grace.

How can that be if the the blood never was intended for him and the grace was never provided for him?



Heb 10:28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses.
Heb 10:29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?
Heb 10:30 For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge his people."
Heb 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Maybe you are unaware of what propitiation means. It does not mean sacrifice.

And I did address the Hebrews text. It was written to Jews. So to profane the blood is to disregard it and hold to the blood of bulls and goats instead.

 

[tall73]

No. It covered all it was intended to cover, namely God's chosen people. Thankfully Paul clarified that not all were Israel who were descended from Abraham.

The earthly type was for the entire camp. So how does that show that it only covered those who were supposed to be covered?

Incidentally, you never answered how all the people managed to look to the snake. I would think nearly none of them would due to their natural inability to please God by repentance.

 

[tall73]

Maybe you are unaware of what propitiation means. It does not mean sacrifice.

Perhaps you don't. The sacrifice is inherent in that, and the word was used in the LXX in connection with the Day of Atonement. Which again was a corporate act for the whole camp, not just part. And Jesus was that sacrifice to please God for all the world. But all did not accept it, so especially to all who believe:

1Jn 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

What do you think it means to be a propitiation for the sins of the whole world?

And how is it that Jesus is Savior to to all, but especially those who believe?

And I did address the Hebrews text. It was written to Jews. So to profane the blood is to disregard it and hold to the blood of bulls and goats instead.

So you admit these people who were lost disregarded Jesus' blood? But if they were lost, according to you, it was not for them anyway? So how could they spurn grace or Jesus' blood?

The answer is because it was for them as well.

 

[tall73]

edit, double.

 

[Hammster]

The earthly type was for the entire camp. So how does that show that it only covered those who were supposed to be covered?

Incidentally, you never answered how all the people managed to look to the snake. I would think nearly none of them would due to their natural inability to please God by repentance.

The atonement actually does something. It atones. Crazy, right? So of course it's only for those intended.

And I gave scripture about the serpent. What people don't want to accept, though, is when Jesus mentions it in John 3, all He's talking about comparing looking at the cross to looking at the serpent. To make the analogy go farther than Jesus did is a mistake and is only done to prop up a thin theology.

 

[Hammster]

Perhaps you don't. The sacrifice is inherent in that, and the word was used in the LXX in connection with the Day of Atonement. Which again was a corporate act for the whole camp, not just part. And Jesus was that sacrifice to please God for all the world. But all did not accept it, so especially to all who believe:

1Jn 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

What do you think it means to be a propitiation for the sins of the whole world?

Propitiation means to satisfy wrath. So Christ's death satisfied God's wrath. If it was for the whole world, as synergists suppose, then God wouldn't have any reason to send people to hell. So it makes more sense to understand "whole world" to mean "people from the whole world".

And how is it that Jesus is Savior to to all, but especially those who believe?

I certainly am not a universalist, so I don't think Paul meant that He saves everyone. It's a pretty detailed answer, and there are much clearer passages to look to.

So you admit these people who were lost disregarded Jesus' blood? But if they were lost, according to you, it was not for them anyway? So how could they spurn grace or Jesus' blood?

The answer is because it was for them as well.

Seriously? That's what you came away with? The blood is for lost people.

Why not read the answer I gave and respond to it.i never said anything about lost. I was talking about Jews. Jews who reject Jesus reject His blood.

 

[janxharris]

Arminians insist that Jesus took the punishment for all sins. Yet, they admit that there are people in hell because of their sins. This makes God disingenuous because He punishes people for sins that His Son already paid for.

smh

Neither Jesus, the Apostles, nor Saint Luke had an issue with the provisional nature of the atonement; we know that Jesus gave His body and blood for Judas Iscariot.

Luke 22:19-21
And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. ​

Judas was at the table and heard what Jesus said, so we know Jesus provided for those who would ultimately not believe.

 

[janxharris]

Irrespective of how many turned to look, the raised serpent provided for all those that were in need of a cure. Jesus' crucifixion in just the same ('Just as' Jesus says) and provided for all those that are born dead in their sins.

 

[janxharris]

John 3:6-7
There was a man sent from God whose name was John (the Baptist). He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe.

Should we question the integrity of John's words?

 

[Hammster]

Jan, this is just too typical of you. In the middle of a discussion, you just ignore what what said and start off in some other direction. How about continuing the discussion?

All provided for, but only those that look will live. Jesus chose his analogy carefully (Jn 3:14-15). Yes Jesus took the punishment but your understanding of what occurred at the cross must be wrong or we would all be born justified...Jesus even paid for our unbelief...

Since we are justified by faith, then I have no idea what you mean. But you can't say that Jesus kinda took the punishment. The Father's wrath was sorta satisfied? I don't think so.

 

[Hammster]

Romans 10:9 remains proof that Jesus rose for all since Paul preached salvation through belief in that very event. You can't proclaim it with integrity if He did not rise for all. Jesus could only have risen for all if he died for all.



John knew it was potential, having authored chapter 3:14-16. Your view of the atonement is obviously false.

Typical response. Don't actually deal with the text.

 

[Hammster]

John 3:6-7
There was a man sent from God whose name was John (the Baptist). He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe.

Should we question the integrity of John's words?

No. Please explain how this applies to the Amekelites. Or the nephalim. Or the Babylonians.

 

[janxharris]

Jan, this is just too typical of you. In the middle of a discussion, you just ignore what what said and start off in some other direction. How about continuing the discussion?

Since we are justified by faith, then I have no idea what you mean. But you can't say that Jesus kinda took the punishment. The Father's wrath was sorta satisfied? I don't think so.

Your understanding of the atonement leads to anomalies - but it's difficult to thrash this out since you have determined to limit the discussion. Scripture clearly teaches an atonement that provides for all. If we go with your understanding then our faith in Christ could hardly seem to be necessary because Jesus would have already paid for our unbelief.

 

[Hammster]

Your understanding of the atonement leads to anomalies - but it's difficult to thrash this out since you have determined to limit the discussion. Scripture clearly teaches an atonement that provides for all. If we go with your understanding then our faith in Christ could hardly seem to be necessary because Jesus would have already paid for our unbelief.

Non sequitur.