Arminianism is untenable

[Hammster]

It was a rhetorical question.

So an avoidance. Even worse.

 

[tall73]

Some other thread.

Alright, I look forward to that

 

[janxharris]

So an avoidance. Even worse.

?

Are Nephilim mankind?

 

[Hammster]

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.

Changing the definition again. Isn't that embarrassing? And not only that, you are practicing eisegesis by saying that the propitiation must be accepted.

So let's see how that's played out. Christ satisfied God's wrath. But if I don't accept that his wrath is satisfied, does He become mad at me again? What if I reject it at an early age, but accept it later? Does God go wobbly?

 

[Hammster]

?

Are Nephilim mankind?

Please just tell me how John's witness of Christ was for them. It should be easy.

 

[Hammster]

We know God does not show favouritism.

To the Jews, which is the context of those verses. You should actually read them.

 

[janxharris]

Please just tell me how John's witness of Christ was for them. It should be easy.

So John the Baptist only witnessed to the elect? No, he witnessed to whomever so that they might believe. An exclusion from the foreordination to eternal life means one cannot do so.

I never suggested the Nephilim would benefit from John the Baptist's witnessing.

 

[tall73]

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?

Mat 22:9 Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.'
Mat 22:10 And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests.
Mat 22:11 "But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment.
Mat 22:12 And he said to him, 'Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless.
Mat 22:13 Then the king said to the attendants, 'Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
Mat 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen."

Which is why later it shows some rejecting the provision made in chapter 10:

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?

 

[janxharris]

To the Jews, which is the context of those verses. You should actually read them.

So as long as the favouritism isn't one people over another then anything else is fine? The fact that God excluded certain individuals from salvation from before the foundation of the earth is just fine is it?

 

[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?

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

 

[tall73]

Changing the definition again. Isn't that embarrassing? And not only that, you are practicing eisegesis by saying that the propitiation must be accepted.

What? I said it was the sacrifice of atonement throughout. How did I change the definition? Then I posted Strongs which agreed and a text that uses the same base word that also is translated that way.

How did I change the definition. You have been confused on the definition all along as it always referred to the sacrifice.

As to eisegesis, it not. The sacrifice in the type required participation by those who were to benefit.

The whole issue is that you have forgotten this applies to a sacrifice of atonement that is predicted in the old, spelled out in the new, with the provisions also being spelled out. Belief is required for the propitiation to have any merit.

So let's see how that's played out. Christ satisfied God's wrath. But if I don't accept that his wrath is satisfied, does He become mad at me again? What if I reject it at an early age, but accept it later? Does God go wobbly?

Incorrect again. It says He was the propitiation, the Sacrifice of atonement. His Sacrifice is the provision which provides atonement. It does not say Jesus satisfied the wrath of God for each person, it says He is the Sacrifice of atonement. Those familiar with how the Day of Atonement worked would know that those who did not comply with the requirements did not in fact benefit.

Now as to wobbly:

One is either abiding in Christ or not. If not remaining in Him, then they are cut off:


Joh 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.
Joh 15:5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.
Joh 15:6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.
Joh 15:7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.

 

[tall73]

Changing the definition again.

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


The definition is of an atoning sacrifice. How did I change that when I said throughout that it is an atoning sacrifice?

 

[Hammster]

So John the Baptist only witnessed to the elect? No, he witnessed to whomever so that they might believe. An exclusion from the foreordination to eternal life means one cannot do so.

I never suggested the Nephilim would benefit from John the Baptist's witnessing.

Why did you emphasize "all"?

 

[Hammster]

Mat 22:9 Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.'
Mat 22:10 And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests.
Mat 22:11 "But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment.
Mat 22:12 And he said to him, 'Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless.
Mat 22:13 Then the king said to the attendants, 'Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
Mat 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen."

Which is why later it shows some rejecting the provision made in chapter 10:

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?

Fine. Don't interact with the text provided. And it was even in a chapter you said I should look at. This is common amongst synergists. I'm getting used to it.

 

[Hammster]

So as long as the favouritism isn't one people over another then anything else is fine? The fact that God excluded certain individuals from salvation from before the foundation of the earth is just fine is it?

You can't take a phrase out of context and make it mean what you want. Well, you can. But you shouldn't.

 

[tall73]

Fine. Don't interact with the text provided. And it was even in a chapter you said I should look at. This is common amongst synergists. I'm getting used to it.

I did look at the text you provided. The covenant was for those called. It does not provide the extent of that.



Who were called according to the other text which deals with the feast of the kingdom?


However, note also that I provided more information from chapter 10 of Hebrews, still in the context of the section on the atonement and the covenant, for 9-10 is a unit, that backed up what I said.

How could they be spurning the Spirit of Grace if it was never offered to them? The covenant was for those called, but it then goes on to illustrate not all who were called responded in the way that would save.

If that calling were sure to bring salvation then how could they have rejected it? How could they reject the Spirit of Grace?

 

[Hammster]

The absurdity results from your definition.

Are you going to deal with it?

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

Please, stop shifting the burden.

 

[Hammster]

What? I said it was the sacrifice of atonement throughout. How did I change the definition? Then I posted Strongs which agreed and a text that uses the same base word that also is translated that way.

How did I change the definition. You have been confused on the definition all along as it always referred to the sacrifice.

As to eisegesis, it not. The sacrifice in the type required participation by those who were to benefit.

The whole issue is that you have forgotten this applies to a sacrifice of atonement that is predicted in the old, spelled out in the new, with the provisions also being spelled out. Belief is required for the propitiation to have any merit.


Incorrect again. It says He was the propitiation, the Sacrifice of atonement. His Sacrifice is the provision which provides atonement. It does not say Jesus satisfied the wrath of God for each person, it says He is the Sacrifice of atonement. Those familiar with how the Day of Atonement worked would know that those who did not comply with the requirements did not in fact benefit.

Now as to wobbly:

One is either abiding in Christ or not. If not remaining in Him, then they are cut off:


Joh 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.
Joh 15:5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.
Joh 15:6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.
Joh 15:7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.

Since you insist on changing the definition of propitiation, I'm done dealing with you. Come back when you understand that propitiation means that God's wrath was satisfied.

 

[Hammster]

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


The definition is of an atoning sacrifice. How did I change that when I said throughout that it is an atoning sacrifice?

The atoning sacrifice was the propitiation. Once you understand, we will continue.

 

[tall73]

Since you insist on changing the definition of propitiation, I'm done dealing with you. Come back when you understand that propitiation means that God's wrath was satisfied.

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.

I changed nothing. The propitiation is an atoning sacrifice. That is the definition. It is a specific kind of sacrifice, as opposed to fellowship offerings, etc. Jesus fulfilled that part of the OT type.


Why do you keep saying I changed the definition when you are staring right at the definition that says it is an atoning sacrifice?
If you want to be done with me, the feeling is shared. I posted the definition and you keep saying I am not going by it, though it says what I said.