@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.

Neither is there any argument or evidence as to why this would have to be the case in our view. No, wild and speculative theories are not evidence. Citation is still lacking.

@The obligation is on him(assuming he takes this route) to answer why it doesn’t follow.

I seem to recall the burden of proof being with the accuser. I don’t have disprove an assertion that doesn’t have any real weight behind it.

@Is being atoned for the same as having your sins expiated? Is being atoned for the same as having a propitiation?

In the sense that one is forgiven, no. Far from being fiction, such forgiveness is genuinely provisioned upon faith. Fiction cannot save one on condition of faith, Christ’s death can.

@By his logic, it is like God personal disposition remains the same because they don’t believe(even though that is atoned for aswell).

In a broad sense, yes: a person remains under wrath until they believe. This is plainly stated, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” (Jn 3:36)

When I pointed out that he falls into the same error as Owen, he goes into a tizzy fit:

@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.

Placing the deeds on a substitute doesn’t preclude other conditions.

@Or like a group of people being pardoned and yet still getting executed.

Provision doesn’t amount to pardon in and of itself, so his analogy falls flat. People being pardoned then executed would be analogous to people persevering in faith and yet still being damned.

@In his world, everyone that goes to hell happens to go because God is being arbitrary.

The criteria are pretty simple: those who genuinely believe are saved, those who do not are damned. That is an objective criterion and anything but arbitrary. This goes to show just how blatantly dishonest and ridiculous this particular objector is.

Notice also that he can only counter-accuse, he can’t refute the argument against his logic: If Christ’s death equates to automatic pardon, then the elect are automatically pardoned even before they believe – which denies salvation by faith.

This is another inept response from Thibodaux. I wish to point one, out of the myriads of other intellectual problems, with “Arminian Deceptions”. Notice my clear concise question and his ability to simply ignore it to push his broken theology:

@Is being atoned for the same as having your sins expiated? Is being atoned for the same as having a propitiation?

In the sense that one is forgiven, no. Far from being fiction, such forgiveness is genuinely provisioned upon faith. Fiction cannot save one on condition of faith, Christ’s death can.

Now, here notice he never answers the question. He only states that unbelievers aren’t forgiven because they didn’t believe. The only truthful way of answering my question is that having an atonement is having a propitiation and an expiation for sins. He’s either ignorant, incompetent, or deceptive. While a strong case can be made for the second option, I assume he’s being deceptive. Because he knows his prooftext state just that:

^{1 John 2:2} And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

^{John 1:29} The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!