Arminianism is untenable

[Hammster]

Isn't that tautology?

Sorry. I didn't edit it correctly.

Wasn't Christ's death a propitiation for all people?

 

[Hammster]

Confirms, not opposes.

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

I don't see why not. It sure seems to say that those people were not included in the atonement. Do you think it says something different?

 

[janxharris]

Sorry. I didn't edit it correctly.

Wasn't Christ's death a propitiation for all people?

Christ's propitiation was made available to all men. That we must still exercise faith despite the fact that Christ atoned for our unbelief suggests that the atonement was provisional rather than actual.

 

[janxharris]

I don't see why not. It sure seems to say that those people were not included in the atonement. Do you think it says something different?

The goat was slaughtered for 'the people.'

John 3:14-18 settles the issue. As does Romans 10:9 and 1 Cor. 15.

 

[Hammster]

Christ's propitiation was made available to all men. That we must still exercise faith despite the fact that Christ atoned for our unbelief suggests that the atonement was provisional rather than actual.

So John really blew it in 1 John, then. He said Christ WAS a propitiation. I guess he didn't check with you.

 

[Hammster]

The goat was slaughtered for 'the people.'

John 3:14-18 settles the issue. As does Romans 10:9 and 1 Cor. 15.

All the people? Not the ones in Lev 23. Or non-Israelites. Why do you need to ignore that?

 

[janxharris]

All the people? Not the ones in Lev 23. Or non-Israelites. Why do you need to ignore that?

The ones that did not deny themselves were some of 'the people' that atonement was made for.

Non-Israelites like Noah and Abraham?

 

[janxharris]

So John really blew it in 1 John, then. He said Christ WAS a propitiation. I guess he didn't check with you.

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

I am not following your point.

 

[Hammster]

The ones that did not deny themselves were some of 'the people' that atonement was made for.

Non-Israelites like Noah and Abraham?

So their sins were covered? That's not what Leviticus 23 indicates.

 

[Hammster]

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

I am not following your point.

He either is or isn't an atoning sacrifice. So His death either is or isn't propitious. There's nothing potential about it.

 

[janxharris]

So their sins were covered? That's not what Leviticus 23 indicates.

We're going round in circles.

 

[janxharris]

He either is or isn't an atoning sacrifice. So His death either is or isn't propitious. There's nothing potential about it.

We must believe because Christ kind of paid for your unbelief...but not quite?
It's provisional, not actual - and it's for all men - John 3:14-18.

I'm still unclear as to how you could preach John 3:14-18 without delivering the 'bad news' of vv.1-13 (your view, not mine) in order that nobody misunderstands your interpretations of God's intentions regarding mankind. Your whole theology must be laid bare must it not?

Do you avoid John 3:14-18?

 

[Hammster]

We're going round in circles.

Not my fault. You brought it up. And now you are distancing yourself because it doesn't say what you thought. Honestly, your track record is to beat a passage to death if you think it's detrimental to Calvinism. So obviously, this goes against what you originally thought.

 

[Hammster]

We must believe because Christ kind of paid for your unbelief...but not quite?
It's provisional, not actual - and it's for all men - John 3:14-18.

I'm still unclear as to how you could preach John 3:14-18 without delivering the 'bad news' of vv.1-13 (your view, not mine) in order that nobody misunderstands your interpretations of God's intentions regarding mankind. Your whole theology must be laid bare must it not?

Do you avoid John 3:14-18?

Again, He's either an atoning sacrifice, or He isn't. His death is propitious, or it isn't.

We don't need to go to your latest pet passage.

 

[janxharris]

Not my fault. You brought it up. And now you are distancing yourself because it doesn't say what you thought. I wsHonestly, your track record is to beat a passage to death if you think it's detrimental to Calvinism. So obviously, this goes against what you originally thought.

I was merely recognising that you will always force a definition of which ever word is used in relation the scope of salvation. The sin offering was for 'the people', but you somehow make it 'the elect' (Lev. 16:15).

 

[janxharris]

Again, He's either an atoning sacrifice, or He isn't. His death is propitious, or it isn't.

You ignored my point.

We don't need to go to your latest pet passage.

It's relevant and you have not answer it.

 

[Hammster]

I was merely recognising that you will always force a definition of which ever word is used in relation the scope of salvation. The sin offering was for 'the people', but you somehow make it 'the elect' (Lev. 16:15).

Were the Babylonians covered?

 

[Hammster]

You ignored my point.



It's relevant and you have not answer it.

Actually, I'm trying to get you to stay on point. Is Christ's death propitious for everyone?

 

[janxharris]

Were the Babylonians covered?

Christ died for all men. The day of atonement saved nobody.

 

[janxharris]

Actually, I'm trying to get you to stay on point. Is Christ's death propitious for everyone?

Already answered.