Arminianism is untenable

[janxharris]

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

Or Abraham?

Nothing to explain. Please explain why it does not.

 

[janxharris]

Non sequitur.

Non sequitur.

Since Jesus propitiated for all sin, including any unbelief in Christ - what's to be done?

Your definition is clearly false.

 

[janxharris]

Galatians 3:7-9
Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

Hebrews 11:24-26
By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. He chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward.

Moses 'knew' of Christ.

 

[tall73]

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

If He is the propitiation that is not a verb form but a noun, He is the sacrifice that pleases God. In the LXX the various cognates of that form were particularly used of the provision on the mercy seat, not just a generic concept of atonement.

Jesus is the means of atonement, it is speaking of the type of Sacrifice He performed, not the impact on each person, but the type of provision. It was for all the world. It does not say all of the world benefited from that atonement. It is to Christ's glory that His sacrifice was sufficient for all the world, though we both agree not all the world will be saved.

The term is referencing the OT type, and its fulfillment. He is the atonement provided for all, just as the rites on the Day of Atonement were for all. However, if someone decided to not participate, they didn't benefit.

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.

Except while others were looking at the illustration aspect, I am not referencing that. I am speaking of the actual event, not the application made off it by Jesus.

You said every Israelite looked and was saved from the serpents. It involved repentance. they had to look in faith to the serpent to be healed. And you said that they all did so opposed to just some of them.

How is that possible if you indicated to me before that natural man cannot repent. All of them managed to. How?

 

[tall73]

Propitiation means to satisfy wrath. So Christ's death satisfied God's wrath. If it was for the whole world, as synergists suppose,

If? It says it was for the whole world. We don't need to suppose.

The term is more than just a generic word for pleasing God. In the LXX it was used particularly of the sacrifices and blood ministration at the mercy seat in the Day of Atonement. John is making the parallel to the provision for the whole camp in that rite.

It is a noun. He is that fulfillment of that rite in the OT. And in that respect His death is for all. Whether folks participate is still up to them.


So when folks earlier said "well unbelief is a sin, so why wouldn't that also be included?". Because they miss the reference to the OT type. In the type the provision was made for all, but if someone didn't participate per the instructions given they did not benefit.

Instead of speaking of atonement in the generic, discuss it in the context of how it was designed by God and illustrated in the Old Testament, and fulfilled by Christ. Hebrews makes it clear that Jesus' death and ministration in heaven did fulfill this rite of cleansing for all.

And unlike the illustration of the serpent in the wilderness, which was an illustration with a fairly limited purpose, the OT type and its discussion in the NT is a complex and broad illustration that is applicable directly to what Jesus did in many various aspects.

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".

But he could have said people from the whole world. He did not. And that misses the OT reference.

 

[Hammster]

Or Abraham?

Nothing to explain. Please explain why it does not.

He came so that the nephalim might believe? There is something to explain. Otherwise you wouldn't have tried to shift the burden.

 

[Hammster]

Non sequitur.

Since Jesus propitiated for all sin, including any unbelief in Christ - what's to be done?

Your definition is clearly false.

Now you are changing again. If He is the propitiation for all, then why does God's wrath abide in those in hell? Why are they in hell to begin with?

 

[Hammster]

Galatians 3:7-9
Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

Hebrews 11:24-26
By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. He chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward.

Moses 'knew' of Christ.

And?

 

[Hammster]

If He is the propitiation that is not a verb form but a noun, He is the sacrifice that pleases God. In the LXX the various cognates of that form were particularly used of the provision on the mercy seat, not just a generic concept of atonement.

Jesus is the means of atonement, it is speaking of the type of Sacrifice He performed, not the impact on each person, but the type of provision. It was for all the world. It does not say all of the world benefited from that atonement. It is to Christ's glory that His sacrifice was sufficient for all the world, though we both agree not all the world will be saved.

The term is referencing the OT type, and its fulfillment. He is the atonement provided for all, just as the rites on the Day of Atonement were for all. However, if someone decided to not participate, they didn't benefit.


Except while others were looking at the illustration aspect, I am not referencing that. I am speaking of the actual event, not the application made off it by Jesus.

You said every Israelite looked and was saved from the serpents. It involved repentance. they had to look in faith to the serpent to be healed. And you said that they all did so opposed to just some of them.

How is that possible if you indicated to me before that natural man cannot repent. All of them managed to. How?

If you are just going to change the definition of propitiation to sacrifice, there's not much to discuss. You've proven that you aren't concerned with what scripture says, but propping up your own tradition.

 

[janxharris]

He came so that the nephalim might believe? There is something to explain. Otherwise you wouldn't have tried to shift the burden.

He came for mankind.

 

[Hammster]

He came for mankind.

I guess I need to remind you of what you said.

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?

Please note your emphasis of "all".

How did John's coming as a witness benefit the nephalim?

 

[janxharris]

Now you are changing again. If He is the propitiation for all, then why does God's wrath abide in those in hell? Why are they in hell to begin with?

I was using your definition of the atonement which is obviously untenable.

 

[janxharris]

I guess I need to remind you of what you said.




Please note your emphasis of "all".

How did John's coming as a witness benefit the nephalim?

John 1:4
In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

 

[tall73]

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 want to try and hold our feet to the fire over a question of your own construction about the nature of atonement, which ignores the details of the OT type and its fulfillment, but you are not willing to give the detailed answer to make sense of the texts presented?

Why not?

 

[janxharris]

And?

You have decided that some could not know of Christ as Moses did?

 

[tall73]

If you are just going to change the definition of propitiation to sacrifice, there's not much to discuss. You've proven that you aren't concerned with what scripture says, but propping up your own tradition.

What do you think it was that was the propitiation? A propitiation is an ACT. And this one is an act with an OT history, and a NT fulfillment. If you are just going to take biblical concepts at their generic usage rather than how they appear in the biblical usage then you are propping up your tradition.


Note also:

ἱλασμός,

Strong's Concordance

hilasmos: propitiation​

Original Word: ἱλασμός, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: hilasmos
Phonetic Spelling: (hil-as-mos')
Short Definition: a propitiation, atoning sacrifice
Definition: a propitiation (of an angry god), atoning sacrifice.

The act in question in the verse is a particular atoning sacrifice, one which was foreshadowed through the OT rites and explained in the NT in light of those rites. It is not just a generic propitiation.

And the nature of it is spelled out clearly. The provision was for all sins. Not all accept the provision.

Just as the sanctuary was there for the Israelites to remove their sins. But those who did not come to God to be cleansed did not benefit.


It is the shedding of Jesus' blood that is the propitiation. It is the sacrifice. Note the cognate used in Romans 3:25:

Rom 3:25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

Note the translation by the NIV:

25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[a] through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—

 

[janxharris]

1 Timothy 4:10
Σωτὴρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων
[the] Saviour of all men

 

[tall73]

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

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.

So you don't think Jews who reject Jesus' blood are lost?

That would be odd, it certainly looks like they are in the text. They reject the Spirit of Grace, trample Jesus underfoot, suffer God's vengeance, and fall into the hands of the living God. Sounds lost.

But since they are lost, how can they be then rejecting that which was, according to you, never offered for them? How can he outrage the Spirit of Grace?

The Spirit of Grace, according to you, is not appealing to the wicked who can't repent without it.

 

[tall73]

EDIT see above, added to the earlier post about the meaning of propitiation.

 

[janxharris]

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.