Arminianism is untenable

[Hammster]

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

Just going by what I've been told.

 

[janxharris]

Really? According to that verse it wasn't.

Which would suggest you read around that verse, wouldn't it? I'm sure you know what it says.

 

[janxharris]

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.

Non sequitur.

 

[janxharris]

Just going by what I've been told.

No, you are shoe-horning your definition into Arminism. Best not to.

 

[janxharris]

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.

I suggest you take on board the Arminian view of the provisional nature of the atonement.

 

[Hammster]

Which would suggest you read around that verse, wouldn't it? I'm sure you know what it says.

I addressed the verse. I didn't read around it. And according to that verse, the atonement didn't apply. If it did, their sins would be atoned for, correct?

 

[Hammster]

No, you are shoe-horning your definition into Arminism. Best not to.

Please don't accuse me of lying. I've been on this forum for seven years. I know what I've been told.

 

[Hammster]

I suggest you take on board the Arminian view of the provisional nature of the atonement.

I would if it were scriptural.

 

[janxharris]

I addressed the verse. I didn't read around it. And according to that verse, the atonement didn't apply. If it did, their sins would be atoned for, correct?

Like I said, best to read the context. The atonement was for all the people.

 

[janxharris]

I would if it were scriptural.

See http://www.christianforums.com/t7840224/

 

[Hammster]

Like I said, best to read the context. The atonement was for all the people.

If not everyone's sins were atoned for, it wasn't.

 

[Hammster]

See http://www.christianforums.com/t7840224/

Again with the desperate attempt?

 

[janxharris]

If not everyone's sins were atoned for, it wasn't.

Apologies - it's explicit in:

Leviticus 16:
15 “He shall then slaughter the goat for the sin offering for the people and take its blood behind the curtain and do with it as he did with the bull’s blood: He shall sprinkle it on the atonement cover and in front of it. 16 In this way he will make atonement for the Most Holy Place because of the uncleanness and rebellion of the Israelites, whatever their sins have been. He is to do the same for the tent of meeting, which is among them in the midst of their uncleanness. 17 No one is to be in the tent of meeting from the time Aaron goes in to make atonement in the Most Holy Place until he comes out, having made atonement for himself, his household and the whole community of Israel.

 

[janxharris]

Again with the desperate attempt?

If you want to call it desperate, I don't mind. It defines the Arminian view of the provisional nature of the atonement for all men.

It is also unrefuted.

 

[Hammster]

Apologies - it's explicit in:

Leviticus 16:
15 “He shall then slaughter the goat for the sin offering for the people and take its blood behind the curtain and do with it as he did with the bull’s blood: He shall sprinkle it on the atonement cover and in front of it. 16 In this way he will make atonement for the Most Holy Place because of the uncleanness and rebellion of the Israelites, whatever their sins have been. He is to do the same for the tent of meeting, which is among them in the midst of their uncleanness. 17 No one is to be in the tent of meeting from the time Aaron goes in to make atonement in the Most Holy Place until he comes out, having made atonement for himself, his household and the whole community of Israel.

For Israel only. Thanks for showing the limit of the atonement. And thanks to progressive revelation, Paul explains that not all were Israel who thought they were.

 

[Hammster]

If you want to call it desperate, I don't mind. It defines the Arminian view of the provisional nature of the atonement for all men.

It is also unrefuted.

It's been refuted. Just not in that thread. But I digress.

 

[janxharris]

For Israel only. Thanks for showing the limit of the atonement. And thanks to progressive revelation, Paul explains that not all were Israel who thought they were.

True Israel are those who have faith. The promise is to the seed which is Christ. As scripture clearly says, anyone may believe.

See http://www.christianforums.com/t7840224/

 

[janxharris]

It's been refuted. Just not in that thread. But I digress.

No, you tried to suggest that believing in Christ's name need not involve belief in the cross/resurrection atonement (since you are mindful of the fact that one cannot be condemned for not believing in something from which one has been excluded). Unfortunately, the miracles, wonders and signs accredited Christ - such works are the very source of belief. And Christ's death and resurrection are explicitly stated by Christ to be a sign.

Please try again.

 

[Hammster]

True Israel are those who have faith. The promise is to the seed which is Christ. As scripture clearly says, anyone may believe.

See http://www.christianforums.com/t7840224/

I know who true Israel are, thanks. And their sins were either atoned for, or they weren't.

 

[Hammster]

Please stop with the redirect to your ignored thread.