This continues our series of Thibodaux failing to comprehend why he is wrong. So, I’ll waste my time in another response:

Our objector crashes and burns again.

@I’ve stated that either this means the pardon is effectual unless one believes, which then means limited atonement is the case in a strange form.

“Pardon is effectual unless one believes?” So we’re pardoned unless we believe, therefore if we believe, we’re not pardoned? I’m not sure this guy even knows what he’s saying….

This is a grammatical mistake in the prior article that was fixed.

@”Or Christ atones for everyone in the same way and men that don’t believe merely are not declared righteous but they remain neutral to God because of the work of the son.”

[citation needed]

It is hard to imagine what he is asking for. Is he asking for a citation of him admitting that this is his position or whether this is an implication of his position? If the former, then he is being silly. That isn’t out of the ordinary for Arminian perspective folks. I never said they stated their beliefs this way, but that it is one of their difficult options to take in the light of penal substitutionary atonement. If he wants the latter, then he is a doofus. Does he think everyone openly believes and states the entailments of their beliefs? We often don’t know and believe the entailments of our beliefs. The obligation is on him(assuming he takes this route) to answer why it doesn’t follow.

@”If Christ only possibly atoned for you, then it obviously doesn’t mean he actually atoned for you.”

Being actually atoned for is not the same as being actually forgiven (since the atonement will not take away one’s sins apart from faith), thus cementing the fact that the n00bjector is confusing contingency and non-actuality.

Is being atoned for the same as having your sins expiated? Is being atoned for the same as having a propitiation? Those must be apart of the legal fictions Arminians believe.

@If Christ is propitiation and expiation for the sins of mankind(that means no difference exists between the way Christ atoned for the elect and non-elect) then it follows that mankind is on eternal neutral ground with God because Christ has pardoned mankind.

By what logic? Since pardon for sins by way of the atonement requires faith, then since not all have faith, not all have pardon. He can hem haw and wiggle as much as he likes, but this is inescapable.

By his own logic, he also falls into the same trap as Owen does: he incorrectly equates atonement with pardon, i.e. if Christ has atoned for mankind then He’s pardoned mankind. Applying our dearest n00bjector’s logic to limited atonement, we would have to conclude that since Christ atoned for all of the elect, then all of the elect are already pardoned -including those who do not yet believe. So his arguments, like Owen’s -perhaps accidentally, but inevitably- reduce to pardon for sin apart from faith.

By his logic, it is like God personal disposition remains the same because they don’t believe(even though that is atoned for aswell). By his logic, this is analogous as the governor of the state placing the deeds of everyone on a single innocent person, but then still executing half of them. Or like a group of people being pardoned and yet still getting executed. In his world, everyone that goes to hell happens to go because God is being arbitrary. It is worse than the objection against unconditional election because it doesn’t allow for any possible reconciliation.