janxharris
Veteran
- Jun 10, 2010
- 7,562
- 55
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Married
See the model of Leviticus 23:29. The atonement is for all the people.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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?
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.
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.
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
Non sequitur. Please address the post instead of making an unconnected statement.
Your definition of the atonement is obviously wrong - see http://www.christianforums.com/t7840224/
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
The elect must believe because although Christ paid for the sin of unbelief, His atonement wasn't quite efficacious?
Your definition doesn't work.
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.
Please don't try to direct traffic to your ignored thread.
This thread is not about Calvinism. Why is that so difficult to figure out?
Your definition which you fit into the Arminian equation will always produce an error. You have been shown that your definition is wrong.
It proves that Christ died for all which your thread attempts to deny.
Ignored probably because it cannot be refuted.
Lev 23:29 For whoever is not afflicted on that very day shall be cut off from his people.
How does that help you?
Then why shoe horn your definition into Arminian theology?
Because the atonement was for all the people.
Please try to stick to the topic of this thread. Is that too much to ask?
Please stick to the topic of this thread. You should be able to defend your view without ever mentioning Calvinism.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?