Arminianism is untenable

[janxharris]

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?

See the model of Leviticus 23:29. The atonement is for all the people.

 

[Hammster]

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.

Non sequitur. This is not about my view. Please stick to the subject instead of carrying over a convo from another thread.

 

[Hammster]

See the model of Leviticus 23:29. The atonement is for all the people.

Non sequitur. Please address the post instead of making an unconnected statement.

 

[janxharris]

Non sequitur. Please address the post instead of making an unconnected statement.

I dealt with it (care of tall73) - Leviticus 23 does not fit your definition of the atonement; it fits the Arminian view which makes it provisional.

 

[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 definition of the atonement is obviously wrong - see http://www.christianforums.com/t7840224/

 

[janxharris]

Non sequitur. Please address the post instead of making an unconnected statement.

The elect must believe because although Christ paid for the sin of unbelief, His atonement wasn't quite efficacious?

Your definition doesn't work.

 

[Hammster]

Your definition of the atonement is obviously wrong - see http://www.christianforums.com/t7840224/

Please don't try to direct traffic to your ignored thread.

 

[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 definition which you fit into the Arminian equation will always produce an error. You have been shown that your definition is wrong.

 

[Hammster]

The elect must believe because although Christ paid for the sin of unbelief, His atonement wasn't quite efficacious?

Your definition doesn't work.

This thread is not about Calvinism. Why is that so difficult to figure out?

 

[Hammster]

I dealt with it (care of tall73) - Leviticus 23 does not fit your definition of the atonement; it fits the Arminian view which makes it provisional.

Lev 23:29 For whoever is not afflicted on that very day shall be cut off from his people.

How does that help you?

 

[janxharris]

Please don't try to direct traffic to your ignored thread.

It proves that Christ died for all which your thread attempts to deny.

Ignored probably because it cannot be refuted.

 

[janxharris]

This thread is not about Calvinism. Why is that so difficult to figure out?

Then why shoe horn your definition into Arminian theology?

 

[Hammster]

Your definition which you fit into the Arminian equation will always produce an error. You have been shown that your definition is wrong.

It's not my definition. It's what I've been told over and over. Christ took the punishment for everyone's sins. And all I've seen since I started this thread is backtracking.

 

[Hammster]

It proves that Christ died for all which your thread attempts to deny.

Ignored probably because it cannot be refuted.

Please try to stick to the topic of this thread. Is that too much to ask?

 

[janxharris]

Lev 23:29 For whoever is not afflicted on that very day shall be cut off from his people.

How does that help you?

Because the atonement was for all the people.

 

[Hammster]

Then why shoe horn your definition into Arminian theology?

Please stick to the topic of this thread. You should be able to defend your view without ever mentioning Calvinism.

 

[Hammster]

Because the atonement was for all the people.

Really? According to that verse it wasn't.

 

[janxharris]

Please try to stick to the topic of this thread. Is that too much to ask?

Did Christ pay for your sin of unbelief and satisfy God's wrath? If it was propitiated for, why do you need to believe?

Your definition leads to such an anomaly and you haven't dealt with it.

 

[janxharris]

Please stick to the topic of this thread. You should be able to defend your view without ever mentioning Calvinism.

Then you need to passing off your own faulty definition as the Arminian definition. They are not the same.

 

[Hammster]

Did Christ pay for your sin of unbelief and satisfy God's wrath? If it was propitiated for, why do you need to believe?

Your definition leads to such an anomaly and you haven't dealt with it.

Please try to stick with the topic of this thread. Your attempts to derail this into another thread against Calvinism are unwanted. You have plenty of those already.