Arminianism is untenable

[pdudgeon]

Actually, it says that all who were bitten looked and were healed.

now i think we're getting somewhere!

ok, so let's investigate and compare the wording of each one.

First verse: "Whenever someone was bitten, and he looked at the bronze snake, he recovered. "

Hammster says: "all who were bitten looked and were healed."

nope, no go. There is no "all" in that verse. Let's try the second verse.

Second verse: "if a serpent bit any man, when he looked to the bronze serpent, he lived."

Hammster says: "all who were bitten looked and were healed."

nope, no go again. there is no "all" in that verse either. Let's try the third verse.

Third verse:"if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived. "

Hammster says: "all who were bitten looked and were healed."

nope, no go again. there's no 'all' in that verse either. Let's try the last verse.

Last verse: "Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived."

nope, no go again. There's no "all" in any of the verses.

So while you can believe that "all who were bitten looked and were healed", you cannot prove that by the verses you cited in your post, because they are saying something else.

 

[Hammster]

now i think we're getting somewhere!

ok, so let's investigate and compare the wording of each one.

First verse: "Whenever someone was bitten, and he looked at the bronze snake, he recovered. "

Hammster says: "all who were bitten looked and were healed."

nope, no go. There is no "all" in that verse. Let's try the second verse.

Second verse: "if a serpent bit any man, when he looked to the bronze serpent, he lived."

Hammster says: "all who were bitten looked and were healed."

nope, no go again. there is no "all" in that verse either. Let's try the third verse.

Third verse:"if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived. "

Hammster says: "all who were bitten looked and were healed."

nope, no go again. there's no 'all' in that verse either. Let's try the last verse.

Last verse: "Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived."

nope, no go again. There's no "all" in any of the verses.

So while you can believe that "all who were bitten looked and were healed", you cannot prove that by the verses you cited in your post, because they are saying something else.

If I said whenever someone was thirsty, they got a drink of water, that would imply that all those who were thirsty got a drink. The word "all" doesn't need to be there.

Your argument from silence fails.

 

[EmSw]

If I said whenever someone was thirsty, they got a drink of water, that would imply that all those who were thirsty got a drink. The word "all" doesn't need to be there.

Your argument from silence fails.

No it doesn't. Her argument stands. Your objection is overruled.

You start off with a 'singular' subject (someone), then change it to 'plural' (they).

If I said the people at Yankee Stadium were thirsty; 'they got a drink' surely does not imply everyone went to get a drink, unless I stated 'all' went to get a drink.

And, this is derailing the OP. Please practice what you preach.

 

[catholichomeschooler]

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

We have the choice whether or not to cooperate with the grace of God.

Our sins are paid for if we choose to give them up. Jesus does not force us to follow him.

I can pay for my kids to have piano lessons, but if they don't go to the lessons they won't learn how to play piano.

 

[Hammster]

We have the choice whether or not to cooperate with the grace of God.

Our sins are paid for if we choose to give them up. Jesus does not force us to follow him.

I can pay for my kids to have piano lessons, but if they don't go to the lessons they won't learn how to play piano.

I was unaware that Catholics considered themselves Arminians.

 

[catholichomeschooler]

I was unaware that Catholics considered themselves Arminians.

Not really, but that is closer to Catholic belief than Calvinism, <staff Edit>.

There is a spectrum of acceptable belief regarding the balance of grace and free will for Catholics. Arminianism falls within that spectrum, five points Calvinism does not.

For a Catholic, it is heresy to say that God predestines anyone to Hell, but it is also heresy to say that we can attain heaven by our own merits alone without God's grace.

 

[Hammster]

I think I'll wait for the Arminians

 

[catholichomeschooler]

I think I'll wait for the Arminians

Good idea. You haven't done so well yet!

 

[Hammster]

Good idea. You haven't done so well yet!

Opinions vary.

 

[janxharris]

If I said whenever someone was thirsty, they got a drink of water, that would imply that all those who were thirsty got a drink. The word "all" doesn't need to be there.

Your argument from silence fails.

The text allows for the possibility that some did not look.

 

[janxharris]

Then in Arminianism, God is unjust for punishing people in Hell for sins which His Son already bore the punishment.

Romans 5:17-18
For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God&#8217;s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.

God abundantly provided for all men, but only those that received His gift lived eternally. This equates exactly to the raising of the bronze serpent for all bitten Israelites who were asked to believe and look (receive).

Christ dying for the elect - particular atonement - cannot be described as abundant provision; the words limited and abundant are not easily reconciled. If only the elect will be regenerated so as to be enabled to receive, then, yet again, Paul's words, 'those who receive,' etc are disingenuous.

 

[catholichomeschooler]

God abundantly provided for all men, but only those that received His gift lived eternally. This equates exactly to the raising of the bronze serpent for all bitten Israelites who were asked to believe and look (receive).

Christ dying for the elect - particular atonement - cannot be described as abundant provision; the words limited and abundant are not easily reconciled. If only the elect will be regenerated so as to be enabled to receive, then, yet again, Paul's words, 'those who receive,' etc are disingenuous.

You can't isolate one or two verses and expand that to build a whole theology.

Paul is quite clear that we need God's grace for salvation, but he also is clear that our response plays a role:


Gal 6
7Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. 8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

 

[janxharris]

You can't isolate one or two verses and expand that to build a whole theology.

Paul is quite clear that we need God's grace for salvation, but he also is clear that our response plays a role:


Gal 6
7Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. 8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

What exactly do you disagree with?

 

[catholichomeschooler]

What exactly do you disagree with?

Sorry I wasn't more clear. I agree with you. I was just joining in the rout!

 

[Hammster]

The text allows for the possibility that some did not look.

Only when viewed through the glasses of your tradition.

 

[Hammster]

Romans 5:17-18
For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.

God abundantly provided for all men, but only those that received His gift lived eternally. This equates exactly to the raising of the bronze serpent for all bitten Israelites who were asked to believe and look (receive).

Christ dying for the elect - particular atonement - cannot be described as abundant provision; the words limited and abundant are not easily reconciled. If only the elect will be regenerated so as to be enabled to receive, then, yet again, Paul's words, 'those who receive,' etc are disingenuous.

Another giant non sequitur. It's really what I expected since it's what you do whenever this subject comes up. You never actually address the issue, but try to deflect.

 

[janxharris]

Sorry I wasn't more clear. I agree with you. I was just joining in the rout!

No problem.

 

[Hammster]

You can't isolate one or two verses and expand that to build a whole theology.

Paul is quite clear that we need God's grace for salvation, but he also is clear that our response plays a role:


Gal 6
7Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. 8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

So you say it's wrong to take one or two verses and build a whole theology, but commend him when he does so.

Odd indeed.

 

[catholichomeschooler]

So you say it's wrong to take one or two verses and build a whole theology, but commend him when he does so.

Odd indeed.

I was adding more. I think Calvinists tend to isolate some passages from Paul and ignore others that contradict their interpretation of those passages.

Do you believe that a man reaps what he sows?

 

[Hammster]

I was adding more. I think Calvinists tend to isolate some passages from Paul and ignore others that contradict their interpretation of those passages.

Do you believe that a man reaps what he sows?

I believe man reaps what he sows. That's why we need the gospel. That's grace.

But that's not the point of this thread.