Arminianism is untenable

[Hammster]

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?

Sin was atoned for. Those who didn't believe didn't have their sins atoned for, according to Leviticus 23.

 

[BobRyan]

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?

The atonement is not truncated at vs 15 of Lev 16 the way some of our Calvinist arguments seem to imagine it.

Instead of being "limited" to the atoning sacrifice of Lev 16 - God says that the atonement scope and process must also include the work of Christ as our High Priest. (So then it includes the remainder of Lev 16 as well)

Thus as 1John 2:2 states - we have an unlimited "atoning sacrifice" that is "for our sins and NOT for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE world" -- a fact that does NOT lead to universalism because atonement in the Bible scope of the term - must include the Heb 4, Heb 8:1-6, Heb 10 work of Christ as High Priest and the individual that comes to Christ "for help in time of need".

I think I have made this two-phase atonement point a few times before.

It is the full scope of Bible-defined atonement that debunks the Calvinist argument at this point and affirms the Arminian one.

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

It only fails if one takes the flawed calvinist scope for atonement that truncates the doctrine of atonement with the Lev 16:15 act of the atoning sacrifice -- and does not include the rest of the Bible definition for Atonement in Lev 16 which is the work of High Priest continued beyond the slaying of the sin offering.

As Heb 4, Heb 8:1-5 and Heb 10 point out we need that work of Christ as High Priest as much as the work of Christ as our atoning sacrifice.

Therefore just as there is the "unlimited" atoning sacrifice "for our sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the whole WORLD" 1John 2:2 so there is the limited aspect as seen in Heb 4, and 10 of those who come to Christ to receive the benefits of the atoning sacrifice - that must also be included in the scope of Bible-atonement.

=====================================

By contrast - Calvinism does not work because it makes God his own gospel-saboteur when He says "What more could I have done that I have not done?" and "Oh Why will you die?? turn to Me and live!" -- the Calvinist responds "I know exactly what God could have done - he could have elected the lost instead of arbitrarily not choosing to elect them".

And that is a huge problem for Calvinism -- making it untenable -- that does not go away.

For the Calvinist this thread is about the Arminian view being untenable.

For the Arminian it is about the Arminian view being the only tenable view and Calvinism being untenable.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Hammster]

The atonement is not truncated at vs 15 of Lev 16 the way some of our Calvinist arguments seem to imagine it.

Instead of being "limited" to the atoning sacrifice of Lev 16 - God says that the atonement scope and process must also include the work of Christ as our High Priest. (So then it includes the remainder of Lev 16 as well)

Thus as 1John 2:2 states - we have an unlimited "atoning sacrifice" that is "for our sins and NOT for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE world" -- a fact that does NOT lead to universalism because atonement in the Bible scope of the term - must include the Heb 4, Heb 8:1-6, Heb 10 work of Christ as High Priest and the individual that comes to Christ "for help in time of need".

I think I have made this two-phase atonement point a few times before.

It is the full scope of Bible-defined atonement that debunks the Calvinist argument at this point and affirms the Arminian one.

in Christ,

Bob

But you still haven't answered the question. If God's wrath is satisfied (propitiated), then on what just basis does He send people to hell?

 

[Hammster]

It only fails if one takes the flawed calvinist scope for atonement that truncates the doctrine of atonement with the Lev 16:15 act of the atoning sacrifice -- and does not include the rest of the Bible definition for Atonement in Lev 16 which is the work of High Priest continued beyond the slaying of the sin offering.

As Heb 4, Heb 8:1-5 and Heb 10 point out we need that work of Christ as High Priest as much as the work of Christ as our atoning sacrifice.

Therefore just as there is the "unlimited" atoning sacrifice "for our sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the whole WORLD" 1John 2:2 so there is the limited aspect as seen in Heb 4, and 10 of those who come to Christ to receive the benefits of the atoning sacrifice - that must also be included in the scope of Bible-atonement.

=====================================

By contrast - Calvinism does not work because it makes God his own gospel-saboteur when He says "What more could I have done that I have not done?" and "Oh Why will you die?? turn to Me and live!" -- the Calvinist responds "I know exactly what God could have done - he could have elected the lost instead of arbitrarily not choosing to elect them".

And that is a huge problem for Calvinism -- making it untenable -- that does not go away.

For the Calvinist this thread is about the Arminian view being untenable.

For the Arminian it is about the Arminian view being the only tenable view and Calvinism being untenable.

in Christ,

Bob

He entered the most holy place once for all, not by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. ([bless and do not curse]Heb 9:12)


Is everyone eternally redeemed?

 

[janxharris]

Sin was atoned for. Those who didn't believe didn't have their sins atoned for, according to Leviticus 23.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[Hammster]

You didn't answer the question.

You mean the one that tried to make this thread about Calvinism?

 

[janxharris]

He entered the most holy place once for all, not by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. ([bless and do not curse]Heb 9:12)


Is everyone eternally redeemed?

The gospel is that they are offered it - John 3:14-18. No universal offer, then no condemnation.

 

[janxharris]

You mean the one that tried to make this thread about Calvinism?

Like this one:

Sin was atoned for. Those who didn't believe didn't have their sins atoned for, according to Leviticus 23.

?

 

[Hammster]

The gospel is that they are offered it - John 3:14-18. No universal offer, then no condemnation.

Um, that didn't even address the question. How about dealing with the verse?

 

[Hammster]

Like this one:

Sin was atoned for. Those who didn't believe didn't have their sins atoned for, according to Leviticus 23.

?

Yes. This is true.

 

[janxharris]

Yes. This is true.

So you can put the Calvinist position, but I'm not permitted to discuss it?

 

[Hammster]

So you can put the Calvinist position, but I'm not permitted to discuss it?

Are you saying that you can't make a positive statement about what you believe without bringing in Calvinism?

And how is that the Calvinist position? I'm just saying what the text says. If you think it says something different, please share.

 

[janxharris]

Are you saying that you can't make a positive statement about what you believe without bringing in Calvinism?

Actually the question I asked applies equally to the Arminian position. Christ dying for all the people's sins (including their unbelief) tells us something about the atonement since we still must believe.

A chance to actually work together on this one...

And how is that the Calvinist position? I'm just saying what the text says. If you think it says something different, please share.

Leviticus 16:15-16
“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. 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.

 

[Hammster]

Actually the question I asked applies equally to the Arminian position. Christ dying for all the people's sins (including their unbelief) tells us something about the atonement since we still must believe.

A chance to actually work together on this one...



Leviticus 16:15-16
“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. 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.

29 For whoever is not afflicted on that very day shall be cut off from his people.
30 And whoever does any work on that very day, that person I will destroy from among his people.

Are these people atoned for? Are their sins covered?

 

[janxharris]

29 For whoever is not afflicted on that very day shall be cut off from his people.
30 And whoever does any work on that very day, that person I will destroy from among his people.

Are these people atoned for? Are their sins covered?

Yes. John 3:14-18 confirms it was for all. Excluding through unconditional election is unthinkable, unconscionable and inexplicable.

 

[Hammster]

Yes. John 3:14-18 confirms it was for all. Excluding through unconditional election is unthinkable, unconscionable and inexplicable.

Why do you think John 3 opposes Leviticus? Leviticus is clear that not only was the atonement not for everyone, but it wasn't even for all of Israel.

 

[Hammster]

Another question. Was Christ's atonement a propitiation for all people?

 

[janxharris]

Another question. Was Christ's atonement a propitiation for all people?

Isn't that tautology?

 

[janxharris]

Why do you think John 3 opposes Leviticus? Leviticus is clear that not only was the atonement not for everyone, but it wasn't even for all of Israel.

Confirms, not opposes.

Ok, we are not going to settle the debate through Lev. 23.