Arminianism is untenable

[Hammster]

?

Since the Babylonians weren't covered, was anyone?

 

[janxharris]

Since the reference isn't about the atonement, it's not relevant to this discussion.

The lifting up of Christ is the atonement.

Hebrews 10:10
And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

 

[janxharris]

Since the Babylonians weren't covered, was anyone?

All the people - all the Israelites (not just some) were covered.

 

[Hammster]

The lifting up of Christ is the atonement.

Hebrews 10:10
And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.

The new covenant was made. It's was made between God and those who are called. Using that context, we know who the "all" are. If "all" are everyone, then God isn't really good at keeping covenants, and we are without hope.

 

[Hammster]

All the people - all the Israelites (not just some) were covered.

So the atonement was limited, even in your theology. It was never for everyone.

 

[janxharris]

Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.

The new covenant was made. It's was made between God and those who are called. Using that context, we know who the "all" are. If "all" are everyone, then God isn't really good at keeping covenants, and we are without hope.

You would have to demonstrate that those called are called unconditionally. John 3:14-18 is for all, obviously.

 

[janxharris]

So the atonement was limited, even in your theology. It was never for everyone.

That atonement saved nobody so your argument is academic.

 

[Hammster]

You would have to demonstrate that those called are called unconditionally. John 3:14-18 is for all, obviously.

I don't have to demonstrate anything. Hebrews 9 is clear who the covenant is between. You have to demonstrate why God sends people to hell who are part of the covenant, if everyone is called.

 

[Hammster]

That atonement saved nobody so your argument is academic.

Was it a shadow of Christ's work?

 

[Hammster]

Well, that was fun.

 

[FreeGrace2]

So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.

Interesting. In post #8, you said this:
All of the Israelites lived who were bitten after the serpent was made. So, your argument really isn't one.

So, now you finally admit one who had been bitten must "look toward (not "at") the bronze serpent. The Numbers 21 text is clear that bitten ones must look toward the serpent in order to live. We don't know if there were any who didn't believe what Moses said and didn't look, and died.

And Jesus equated looking with believing in Jn 3:15.

Glad you corrected your error.

 

[OzSpen]

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

And you provide not one piece of evidence from Arminian sources to support your claim.

I also am SMH, but for a different reason to yours.

 

[OzSpen]

Empty words.

Fact: In Arminianism, Christ takes the punishment for all sins for all time.

Fact: in Arminianism, some people are punished for sins that Christ already took the punishment for.

No straw man in sight.

And you again provide not one shred of evidence from an Arminian source to support your allegation. Discussion in this thread should be more than an accusation without evidence. It wouldn't make it to the courts in my country without evidence. It shouldn't make it to this thread without your providing evidence to support your claim.

Then, of course, your evidence will be tested by judges and juries on this forum.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

The OP is a straw man for it does not align with how Jesus describes salvation through his crucifixion.

Evidence is needed from Jesus that demonstrates this is a straw man fallacy.

 

[Hammster]

And you again provide not one shred of evidence from an Arminian source to support your allegation. Discussion in this thread should be more than an accusation without evidence. It wouldn't make it to the courts in my country without evidence. It shouldn't make it to this thread without your providing evidence to support your claim.

Then, of course, your evidence will be tested by judges and juries on this forum.

Oz

So you disagree with my statements? Good.

 

[OzSpen]

So you disagree with my statements? Good.

Hamm,

You have a bad habit of not replying to the content of what I write. This is another example, thus meaning that you committed a red herring logical fallacy.

Here again is what I said of your OP:

And you again provide not one shred of evidence from an Arminian source to support your allegation. Discussion in this thread should be more than an accusation without evidence. It wouldn't make it to the courts in my country without evidence. It shouldn't make it to this thread without your providing evidence to support your claim.

Then, of course, your evidence will be tested by judges and juries on this forum.
​

How about replying to what I wrote?

 

[Hammster]

Hamm,

You have a bad habit of not replying to the content of what I write. This is another example, thus meaning that you committed a red herring logical fallacy.

Here again is what I said of your OP:

And you again provide not one shred of evidence from an Arminian source to support your allegation. Discussion in this thread should be more than an accusation without evidence. It wouldn't make it to the courts in my country without evidence. It shouldn't make it to this thread without your providing evidence to support your claim.

Then, of course, your evidence will be tested by judges and juries on this forum.
​

How about replying to what I wrote?

If you agree with my allegation, then there's no need for support. If you disagree with my allegation, then that's a good thing.

 

[EmSw]

So you disagree with my statements? Good.

What is the punishment for sin?

Show me where Jesus took that punishment.

 

[Hammster]

What is the punishment for sin?

Show me where Jesus took that punishment.

Non...well, you know the rest.

 

[EmSw]

Non...well, you know the rest.

If you don't know the punishment, why do you bring it up?

Let me help you; the wages of sin... well, you know the rest.