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 … Continue reading Flying High , Crashing Hard

Our objector raises a few more confused objections, positing a nonsensical idea that the atonement somehow makes men ‘neutral,’ which I do not believe at all, nor know of anyone who does. @Either Christ atones for the sins of people when they believe and thus limited atonement is true in some regard. This is understood by the idea that the imputation both ways only occur when someone believes. But Christ died 2000 years ago for the sins of all as Thibodaux states. Christ atoned for the sins of all, but such that forgiveness is contingent upon faith in Him. Who … Continue reading Rekindling Owen

Thibodaux has written a response to me in his comments on his “Arminianism is cancer” article. Here are my thoughts: We have a little more from the same objector on Owen: @He argues that if you believe Christ dealt with sin/sin guilt or whatever makes mankind guilty before God, then it follows that all men must be saved. That follows if an only if the arguer assumes that the atonement saves people apart from faith. @It never states the people will be saved apart from faith. Indeed, it doesn’t state it outright, but he necessarily must presuppose as much for … Continue reading Thibodaux’s Atonement and Legal Fictions