Arminianism is untenable

[Hammster]

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

My definition is the satisfaction of God's wrath so that there can be peace. So no, that's not what you were doing. More likely, you are avoiding answering my questions.

 

[Hammster]

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

Honestly, this is just plain annoying. I am dealing with the text you brought up and emphasized, asking you to defend it, and off you go again. All that says to me is your view really is untenable when you can't even defend your own proof texts.

 

[Hammster]

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?

I believe I explained that in the post you quoted.

 

[Hammster]

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

You mean Moses the Israelite? The one God spoke to? What does that have to do with the nephalim? Are you really going to offer an argument from silence? Again?

 

[Hammster]

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—

Going back to the verse, was God's wrath propitiated for the whole world by Christ's death?

 

[janxharris]

My definition is the satisfaction of God's wrath so that there can be peace. So no, that's not what you were doing. More likely, you are avoiding answering my questions.

If Christ paid for the sin of unbelief per your definition, what's left to be done?

 

[Hammster]

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 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.

When you actually deal with what I said, I'll respond.

 

[janxharris]

Honestly, this is just plain annoying. I am dealing with the text you brought up and emphasized, asking you to defend it, and off you go again. All that says to me is your view really is untenable when you can't even defend your own proof texts.

You mean I went back three verses and explained the context? The context is mankind, right?

What are Nephilim?

 

[janxharris]

You mean Moses the Israelite? The one God spoke to? What does that have to do with the nephalim? Are you really going to offer an argument from silence? Again?

Abraham the non-Israelite? Noah?

You know who God did and did not speak to? You were privy were you?

 

[tall73]

I believe I explained that in the post you quoted.

You did not give any reason for what you said. You said it was long and detailed. Where is that long and detailed answer?

 

[Hammster]

If Christ paid for the sin of unbelief per your definition, what's left to be done?

The fact that you keep wanting to shift the burden to me is telling.

 

[tall73]

When you actually deal with what I said, I'll respond.

I did deal with what you said.

Those Jews who rejected Jesus' blood were lost were they not?

Yet then how can they be said to outraging the Spirit of Grace if the Spirit of Grace was not offered to them.

And the context is in fact that atonement that Jesus made. He just outlined the fulfillment of the various blood types in detail in chapters 9 and 10, and then he states this.

These verses describe those who rejected the great atoning Sacrifice of Christ. They neglected such a sacrifice that WAS offered to them.

And then they were lost, because of their action.

Yes, the letter was likely written to Jews. They were Jews who had made a profession of Christ, and in the past stood for Him. Yet he describes that if they turn away from what was offered they will be lost, and they will be rejecting the blood offered for them.

 

[janxharris]

The fact that you keep wanting to shift the burden to me is telling.

The absurdity results from your definition.

Are you going to deal with it?

 

[Hammster]

You mean I went back three verses and explained the context? The context is mankind, right?

What are Nephilim?

If you don't know, I don't even know why I'm trying to discuss scripture with you. You should read the OT sometime. It gives you the basis for understanding the new. Otherwise, you'll continue to act as if it were written to you last week.

 

[Hammster]

Abraham the non-Israelite? Noah?

You know who God did and did not speak to? You were privy were you?

So you are going for the argument from silence. Good to know.

 

[Hammster]

You did not give any reason for what you said. You said it was long and detailed. Where is that long and detailed answer?

Some other thread.

 

[janxharris]

If you don't know, I don't even know why I'm trying to discuss scripture with you. You should read the OT sometime. It gives you the basis for understanding the new. Otherwise, you'll continue to act as if it were written to you last week.

It was a rhetorical question.

 

[tall73]

Going back to the verse, was God's wrath propitiated for the whole world by Christ's death?

Is that then a recognition that it is referring to a sacrifice? You made the assertion it did not refer to a sacrifice. I presented evidence that it does. You brushed past. I guess that is an acceptance then as you no longer attempted to refute that point?


Going back to the verse you misread the verse, because you failed to consider what difference it makes if it is the sacrifice in mind, rather than saying that He actually satisfied God's wrath for all.

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

He is the sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the whole world. It is speaking of the sufficiency of His sacrifice. The sacrifice He offered is indeed the sacrifice of atonement for the whole world. But then the individuals of the world must respond to that sacrifice.

Some reject it, as those described in Hebrews 10 for instance, which was right after the most extended description of this fulfillment of the blood rites in the entire NT.

 

[Hammster]

I did deal with what you said.

Those Jews who rejected Jesus' blood were lost were they not?

Yet then how can they be said to outraging the Spirit of Grace if the Spirit of Grace was not offered to them.

And the context is in fact that atonement that Jesus made. He just outlined the fulfillment of the various blood types in detail in chapters 9 and 10, and then he states this.

These verses describe those who rejected the great atoning Sacrifice of Christ. They neglected such a sacrifice that WAS offered to them.

And then they were lost, because of their action.

Yes, the letter was likely written to Jews. They were Jews who had made a profession of Christ, and in the past stood for Him. Yet he describes that if they turn away from what was offered they will be lost, and they will be rejecting the blood offered for them.

Hebrews 9

Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.

So was the atonement for all, or just those who are called?

 

[janxharris]

So you are going for the argument from silence. Good to know.

We know God does not show favouritism.