Arminianism is untenable

[BobRyan]

God said "ALL scripture is given by God and to be used for doctrine" 2Tim 3:16 -- and the NT writers used primarily the OT as their scripture.

There are 66 books in my Bible. "Give me the Bible AND the words IN the bible".

Rev 3 is written to the lost alone and without Christ "IF ANYONE hear my voice and open the door I will come in" --

Matt 11 "Come unto Me ALL who are weary and heavy ladened"

The point remains as even Christ points out in Mark 7:6-13 those who wish to toss the ot under a bus in favor of false doctrine - are making a huge mistake..

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Hammster]

God said "ALL scripture is given by God and to be used for doctrine" 2Tim 3:16 -- and the NT writers used primarily the OT as their scripture.

There are 66 books in my Bible. "Give me the Bible AND the words IN the bible".

Rev 3 is written to the lost alone and without Christ "IF ANYONE hear my voice and open the door I will come in" --

Matt 11 "Come unto Me ALL who are weary and heavy ladened"

The point remains as even Christ points out in Mark 7:6-13 those who wish to toss the ot under a bus in favor of false doctrine - are making a huge mistake..

in Christ,

Bob

I'm not sure how you think any of this refutes Calvinism. Maybe if you do more than just post scripture, it would be helpful.

 

[OzSpen]

That pesky little word called 'if' negates the presumption you think you see. Stop nit-picking, and trying to undercut what others say because you don't like the way they said it.

Would you please extend the courtesy to people by back-quoting so we know to what you refer? If you are referring to my post with this comment, it is a false accusation.

 

[nobdysfool]

Would you please extend the courtesy to people by back-quoting so we know to what you refer? If you are referring to my post with this comment, it is a false accusation.

Hammster made it quite clear. 'IF you are not Arminian, this thread doesn't apply to you' is what he said, and it wasn't said to you. For you to pass value judgments on posts not directed to you is, or can be viewed as, being a bit of a busybody. You're not a mod here, so you have no standing to nitpick what others say and/or how they say it.

 

[OzSpen]

Hammster made it quite clear. 'IF you are not Arminian, this thread doesn't apply to you' is what he said, and it wasn't said to you. For you to pass value judgments on posts not directed to you is, or can be viewed as, being a bit of a busybody. You're not a mod here, so you have no standing to nitpick what others say and/or how they say it.

I was responding to Hammster, not as a moderator, but as a contributor to this thread. He did not post as a moderator.

 

[EmSw]

Hammster made it quite clear. 'IF you are not Arminian, this thread doesn't apply to you' is what he said, and it wasn't said to you. For you to pass value judgments on posts not directed to you is, or can be viewed as, being a bit of a busybody. You're not a mod here, so you have no standing to nitpick what others say and/or how they say it.

Is this a private thread? Since when is anyone forbidden to post on this thread?

 

[EmSw]

I'm not sure how you think any of this refutes Calvinism. Maybe if you do more than just post scripture, it would be helpful.

I believe he did post more than scripture. Did you not read it?

 

[Hammster]

Is this a private thread? Since when is anyone forbidden to post on this thread?

It's open, as long as it's on topic.

 

[Hammster]

I believe he did post more than scripture. Did you not read it?

Yeah. Over-generalization doesn't help.

 

[BobRyan]

Hammster made it quite clear. 'IF you are not Arminian, this thread doesn't apply to you' is what he said, and it wasn't said to you. For you to pass value judgments on posts not directed to you is, or can be viewed as, being a bit of a busybody. You're not a mod here, so you have no standing to nitpick what others say and/or how they say it.

The point remains - when those attacking the Arminian position simply make "no point" it is so obvious that even readers who are not themselves Arminian "can see it".

We call that "objectivity".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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

That argument only works if you deny the 1John 2:2 fact that at the cross we have the "Atoning Sacrifice" for "our sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the whole world"

-- and also forget to notice that in Lev 16 (on the subject of "Atonement") you need BOTH the work of Christ as "Atoning sacrifice" the "Sin offering" but also the Heb 8:1-5 work of Christ as "High Priest" in heaven - to complete the entire Bible "scope" of atonement.

As Heb 4 and 8 point out we enter into benefit from that work of Christ as we each one choose to follow Him.

Rev 3 makes the point "I STAND at the door and knock.. if ANYONE hears my voice and opens the door I WILL come in".

One, if you think that 1 John 2:2 is going to save you, then there's no just reason for God to send anyone to hell.

Revelation 3 is written to a church.

Leviticus 16 only covered Israel. It's limited.

God said "ALL scripture is given by God and to be used for doctrine" 2Tim 3:16 -- and the NT writers used primarily the OT as their scripture.

There are 66 books in my Bible. "Give me the Bible AND the words IN the bible".

Rev 3 is written to the lost alone and without Christ "IF ANYONE hear my voice and open the door I will come in" --

Matt 11 "Come unto Me ALL who are weary and heavy ladened"

The point remains as even Christ points out in Mark 7:6-13 those who wish to toss the ot under a bus in favor of false doctrine - are making a huge mistake..

I'm not sure how you think any of this refutes Calvinism. Maybe if you do more than just post scripture, it would be helpful.

It is not as difficult to follow the logic in that sequence as you have imagined to yourself.

You argued against the use of Scripture for doctrine if that OT scripture is lev 16-- and Paul debunks your wild speculation in that regard in 2Tim 3:16 so then you "pretend not to notice the problem" in your most recent response.

Your problem is that obviously Lev 16 and 1John 2:2 debunk the flaw in the atonement doctrine that Calvinism relies upon to make its case --

Were we simply "not supposed to notice" the details? Really??

How so?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Hammster]

That argument only works if you deny the 1John 2:2 fact that at the cross we have the "Atoning Sacrifice" for "our sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the whole world"

-- and also forget to notice that in Lev 16 (on the subject of "Atonement") you need BOTH the work of Christ as "Atoning sacrifice" the "Sin offering" but also the Heb 8:1-5 work of Christ as "High Priest" in heaven - to complete the entire Bible "scope" of atonement.

As Heb 4 and 8 point out we enter into benefit from that work of Christ as we each one choose to follow Him.

Rev 3 makes the point "I STAND at the door and knock.. if ANYONE hears my voice and opens the door I WILL come in".








It is not as difficult to follow the logic in that sequence as you have imagined to yourself.

You argued against the use of Scripture for doctrine if that OT scripture is lev 16-- and Paul debunks your wild speculation in that regard in 2Tim 3:16 so then you "pretend not to notice the problem" in your most recent response.

Your problem is that obviously Lev 16 and 1John 2:2 debunk the flaw in the atonement doctrine that Calvinism relies upon to make its case --

Were we simply "not supposed to notice" the details? Really??

How so?

in Christ,

Bob

Nice conclusion. Still waiting for an argument.

Let's start with 1 John 2:2. If you're view is correct, that the atonement is for everyone, then on what basis can God justly send people to hell?

 

[EmSw]

Nice conclusion. Still waiting for an argument.

Let's start with 1 John 2:2. If you're view is correct, that the atonement is for everyone, then on what basis can God justly send people to hell?

I am wondering, according to Calvinism, on what basis can God justly send people to hell?

 

[Hammster]

I am wondering, according to Calvinism, on what basis can God justly send people to hell?

Not the topic.

 

[EmSw]

Not the topic.

According to your very own post, it is. Care to answer now?

 

[Hammster]

According to your very own post, it is. Care to answer now?

Last time. Not the topic.

 

[OzSpen]

Is this a private thread? Since when is anyone forbidden to post on this thread?

Well said, brother.

 

[OzSpen]

Are you going to address the OP, or are you just here to take pot shots at my posts?

I addressed your post and you don't seem to like that so you give me a red herring question: 'are you just here to take pot shots at my posts?'

That's a totally irrelevant question when I was addressing your post.

 

[Hammster]

I addressed your post and you don't seem to like that so you give me a red herring question: 'are you just here to take pot shots at my posts?'

That's a totally irrelevant question when I was addressing your post.

Are you going to address the OP?

 

[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

Your view of God appears to be - pick out some men for salvation and just leave the rest. Promoting such a understanding is troubling enough, but to attempt to preach the Gospel as well remains an astonishment.

If you were to preach the gospel of John 3:14-18 you would necessarily have to put it in context (since that is what you have been doing when those verses are discussed) - that is, you would have to deal with vv.1-13 which you think treats of pre-faith regeneration (the sine qua non of salvation). Of course, if you did so, you would trash the very gospel you preach.

No genuine offer to believe, then no genuine good news...no gospel. Your theology, it would appear, actually comes against the central work of God's Son.

Quite clearly, your definition of the atonement is incorrect. tall73 showed you Lev. 23 which has the atonement made for all the people but which may be rendered without effect if one does not deny oneself. John 3:14-18 is also clear in that provision was made for all.

Christ did not atone per your definition or the elect would be born sinless. They are also deserving of wrath, just like everyone else.