Arminianism is untenable

[janxharris]

But not you. You didn't reject him. The apostles didn't reject him. In fact, the NT tells us that many believed on him.

John 10:42 And in that place many believed in Jesus.
John 8:30 Even as he spoke, many believed in him.
John 7:31 Still, many in the crowd believed in him

So by "mankind" it cannot be meant "every single individual in the human race", right? Thus, you haven't really advanced your argument.

Just by sinning we have rejected God and thus Jesus.

 

[nobdysfool]

If Christ paid in full for such a rejection of the gift (and in the manner you seem to imply) then why would anyone need to have faith in the first place?

You do not answer a question by asking another. What you have said is not an answer to my question. Please answer the question.

 

[janxharris]

All in it's good time. Those whom He foreknew He predestinated, the same He called, etc..
He loved His elect/sheep with an everlasting love. He loved them before bringing the world into existence. He assures us that He will call them.

? I can't really see a clear argument here.

 

[Josephus]

Not really the subject. Is there a relevance?

I believe the relevance is dependent on who is taking account and when. Armenians believe the sin payment is a voucher, only good if accepted by both parties. Calvinists see it as a voucher that is only handled by one party. Both are correct. (As a Jew, you knew I'd say that, right?)

 

[janxharris]

What do you mean by saved? Regenerated? Justified? Sanctified?

Please be specific.

All the above - if Christ paid in full as you seem to imply (including the sin of unbelief) then what's left to do?

 

[janxharris]

You do not answer a question by asking another. What you have said is not an answer to my question. Please answer the question.

Jan, you say they are in hell because they rejected the gift. Is that not a sin? If so, wasn't that sin dealt with for all men, as you claim? If it has been dealt with, how can they be held accountable a second time?​

Using your logic, Christ's payment in full (including the sin of unbelief) would render those Christ died for sinless from birth. Your question incorporates a straw man so there is no need for me to respond.

 

[Hammster]

I believe the relevance is dependent on who is taking account and when. Armenians believe the sin payment is a voucher, only good if accepted by both parties. Calvinists see it as a voucher that is only handled by one party. Both are correct. (As a Jew, you knew I'd say that, right?)

No, not correct. It assumes, firstly, that it's a gift only if it can be accepted or rejected. That doesn't work, even as a Jew. In fact, the Day if Atonement doesn't even assume that.

 

[Hammster]

All the above - if Christ paid in full as you seem to imply (including the sin of unbelief) then what's left to do?

Justification is by faith. Regeneration is by God's choice.

 

[Hammster]

Jan, you say they are in hell because they rejected the gift. Is that not a sin? If so, wasn't that sin dealt with for all men, as you claim? If it has been dealt with, how can they be held accountable a second time?​

Using your logic, Christ's payment in full (including the sin of unbelief) would render those Christ died for sinless from birth. Your question incorporates a straw man so there is no need for me to respond.

If that's the case, then you must think one becomes sinless upon belief. That's not biblical.

 

[janxharris]

Justification is by faith. Regeneration is by God's choice.

Right, so the implied definition of the atonement in the OP is incorrect then. You said:

This makes God disingenuous because He punishes people for sins that His Son already paid for.​

 

[Hammster]

Right, so the implied definition of the atonement in the OP is incorrect then. You said:

This makes God disingenuous because He punishes people for sins that His Son already paid for.​

Not my view. That's Arminianism. Context, brother. Context.

 

[nobdysfool]

Jan, you say they are in hell because they rejected the gift. Is that not a sin? If so, wasn't that sin dealt with for all men, as you claim? If it has been dealt with, how can they be held accountable a second time?​

Using your logic, Christ's payment in full (including the sin of unbelief) would render those Christ died for sinless from birth. Your question incorporates a straw man so there is no need for me to respond.

More avoidance. I'm not interested in your faulty logic. Stop telling me what my theology says (which you clearly do not understand), and explain to me how your theology avoids the obvious fault that exists in it. Why does God (in your theology) engage in double jeopardy where the sins of mankind are concerned?

Are you afraid to answer truthfully?

 

[nobdysfool]

Bottom line: janxharris has accused Calvinists of being disingenuous in preaching the Gospel,. and we are showing him that Arminianism is disingenuous in their theology of the Atonement. Be careful what you accuse others of.

 

[nobdysfool]

Here is the crux of the matter:

The Puritan theologian, John Owen, considering the design of the atonement, suggested the following: God imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent the pains of hell for, either: All the sins of all men. All the sins of some men, or Some sins of all men. In which case it may be said: If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved. If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world. But if the first be true, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins? You answer, "Because of their unbelief." I ask, "Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it is, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"

 

[tall73]

No, not correct. It assumes, firstly, that it's a gift only if it can be accepted or rejected. That doesn't work, even as a Jew. In fact, the Day if Atonement doesn't even assume that.

The Day of Atonement doesn't assume what?

As indicated before:

In the Day of Atonement the high priest made corporate provision for the whole camp. However, those who refused to participate and afflict themselves were cut off and did not receive the benefit.

The high priest made provision that would have applied to them, but they removed themselves from the benefit.

In the same way Jesus is pictured making corporate provision in Hebrews. And people either avail themselves of it or do not.

 

[tall73]

More avoidance. I'm not interested in your faulty logic. Stop telling me what my theology says (which you clearly do not understand), and explain to me how your theology avoids the obvious fault that exists in it. Why does God (in your theology) engage in double jeopardy where the sins of mankind are concerned?

Are you afraid to answer truthfully?

To understand, look at the OT type.

Jesus presented one corporate sacrifice that was sufficient for all, just as the high priest did on the Day of Atonement. Those who did not participate and afflict themselves however, were cut off from the people. Had they accepted the ministry going on for them they would have benefited because the one offering presented was sufficient for their sins as well.

The same priest offered the same corporate provision either way. The people who did not participate exempted themselves from the benefit.
Though had they done otherwise the same sacrifice would have dealt with their sins.

Hebrews presents Jesus as making provision for sin before sitting at the right hand of God.

Heb 10:12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God

It is a corporate provision, ready to be the sacrifice for any sin. But only those who actually believe benefit.

Yet, those who do not believe are still seen as despising the Spirit of grace and profaning the blood of the covenant.

Heb 10:28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses.
Heb 10:29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?
Heb 10:30 For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge his people."
Heb 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Clearly the person described was not saved. Yet it was still that blood of the covenant that was meant to make the person holy that was being profaned.

 

[janxharris]

Not my view. That's Arminianism. Context, brother. Context.

This makes God disingenuous because He punishes people for sins that His Son already paid for.​

The Arminian view of the atonement is provisional in nature. Only those who believe in Christ actually benefit from the cross. How can the non-believer be paying twice if only believers are actually justified? That which I have emboldened (above) assumes a view of Arminianism this is incorrect but which avails you of a seeming argument of inconsistency against us. That is why I made the point about Christ paying for the sin of unbelief - your assumed definition of the atonement is a reductio ad absurdum.

 

[janxharris]

More avoidance. I'm not interested in your faulty logic. Stop telling me what my theology says (which you clearly do not understand), and explain to me how your theology avoids the obvious fault that exists in it. Why does God (in your theology) engage in double jeopardy where the sins of mankind are concerned?

Are you afraid to answer truthfully?

I am not telling you what your theology says - I am pointing out a flawed understanding in the definition of the atonement that the OP appears to use to attack Arminianism - and of which you avail yourself. Such a definition leads to the absurd.

 

[janxharris]

The Day of Atonement doesn't assume what?

As indicated before:

In the Day of Atonement the high priest made corporate provision for the whole camp. However, those who refused to participate and afflict themselves were cut off and did not receive the benefit.

The high priest made provision that would have applied to them, but they removed themselves from the benefit.

In the same way Jesus is pictured making corporate provision in Hebrews. And people either avail themselves of it or do not.

That is very interesting - do you have a specific scripture?

 

[janxharris]

Here is the crux of the matter:

The Puritan theologian, John Owen, considering the design of the atonement, suggested the following: God imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent the pains of hell for, either: All the sins of all men. All the sins of some men, or Some sins of all men. In which case it may be said: If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved. If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world. But if the first be true, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins? You answer, "Because of their unbelief." I ask, "Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it is, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"

Christ did not pay for the sin of unbelief as John Owen assumes and uses to attack Arminianism. For if Christ did so (in such a way), then who even needs to believe? Yes, such a definition leads to such absurdity.