Arminianism is untenable

[Hammster]

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.

Anyway, sticking with the subject of this thread...

 

[janxharris]

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

Assertion.

 

[janxharris]

Please stop with the redirect to your ignored thread. Is getting pathetic, now.

And this is reportable. I was dealing with what you wrote.

 

[janxharris]

Anyway, sticking with the subject of this thread...

You alluded to it and then could not deal with my response.

 

[OzSpen]

Please stop with the redirect to your ignored thread. Is getting pathetic, now.

Would you please be courteous to the rest of us who read this thread, by telling us to what you are referring?

I don't have a clue what you topic is with this kind of comment.

This is a forum that is supposed to allow others to participate. I can't do that when the content of your post is unclear.

 

[Hammster]

Assertion.

Really? So what's the alternative?

 

[Hammster]

And this is reportable. I was dealing with what you wrote.

Feel free to report. But all I see is you continually trying to direct traffic to your thread.

 

[Hammster]

Would you please be courteous to the rest of us who read this thread, by telling us to what you are referring?

I don't have a clue what you topic is with this kind of comment.

This is a forum that is supposed to allow others to participate. I can't do that when the content of your post is unclear.

www.christianforums.com/t7836789-40/#post66260103

 

[OzSpen]

www.christianforums.com/t7836789-40/#post66260103

To which numbered post in this URL are you referring?

 

[Hammster]

To which numbered post in this URL are you referring?

The one it goes to (392).

Bye.

 

[OzSpen]

The one it goes to (392).

Bye.

I find that to be a smart alec kind of comment as this was my response to what you had written to janxharris:

Would you please be courteous to the rest of us who read this thread, by telling us to what you are referring?

I don't have a clue what you topic is with this kind of comment.

This is a forum that is supposed to allow others to participate. I can't do that when the content of your post is unclear.
​

It had zero to do with my saying Bye. So yours here is a red herring fallacy when you don't answer my question about a request to tell me what you are talking about, with your response to jan.

By the way, you also said, Bye.

 

[Hammster]

I find that to be a smart alec kind of comment as this was my response to what you had written to janxharris:

Would you please be courteous to the rest of us who read this thread, by telling us to what you are referring?

I don't have a clue what you topic is with this kind of comment.

This is a forum that is supposed to allow others to participate. I can't do that when the content of your post is unclear.
​

It had zero to do with my saying Bye. So yours here is a red herring fallacy when you don't answer my question about a request to tell me what you are talking about, with your response to jan.

By the way, you also said, Bye.

I thought you were leaning my thread. I guess I was wrong. Or "bye" means something different in your neck of the woods.

 

[OzSpen]

I thought you were leaning my thread. I guess I was wrong. Or "bye" means something different in your neck of the woods.

That's another red herring comment where you don't address the issue I raised. No, I'm not "leaning my thread", whatever that means.

 

[Hammster]

That's another red herring comment where you don't address the issue I raised. No, I'm not "leaning my thread", whatever that means.

I keep committing red herring logical fallacies. You cannot have a discussion with me if I continue to do so. And since you cannot seem to address the OP...

Bye

 

[OzSpen]

I keep committing red herring logical fallacies. You cannot have a discussion with me if I continue to do so. And since you cannot seem to address the OP...

Bye

And neither are you addressing the OP with this response.

 

[Hammster]

And neither are you addressing the OP with this response.

Are you going to address the OP?

 

[whitebeaches]

Mod Hat​

Closed this thread for Staff Review​

Mod Hat Off​

 

[High Fidelity]

MOD HAT ON

The thread has been cleaned up.

Please remember to stay on-topic and if you wish to discuss something different, feel free to create a thread pertinent to that line of discussion and PM a link to the people you'd wish to discuss it further with.

Also, more importantly as it has already been implicitly stated in this thread before, address the post and not the poster.

The thread is open again.

MOD HAT OFF
​

 

[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.

 

[janxharris]

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

Assertion.

If their unbelief was atoned for in the way you seem to be suggesting, then what's left to be done? Why would belief be necessary?

The fact that belief is necessary should tell us something about the nature of the atonement. It should help us define it, shouldn't it?