Does Romans 10 disprove particular atonement?

[Hammster]

Since it leads to an anomaly in the preaching of salvation through belief in Christ's resurrection then the 'our' of Romans 4:25 cannot mean 'the elect' (per Calvinism) and must mean all.

Or, it could (and does) mean Paul and his immediate audience.

 

[A New Dawn]

Why are you quibbling about the fact that Paul states that Christ was raised up again for our (per your view - the elect's) justification.

If you want to talk about quibbling, isn't this whole thread just a quibbling point for you? All will be resurrected, period. That is not a discussion point. Then you moved the goalposts to whether the resurrection is beneficial because your original statement was proved wrong. But I am not quibbling over that point, you are.

I don't think you can have understood my point, for your link does not address it.

I'll try again:

For you, the 'our' of Romans 4:25 means the elect - however, Paul preached salvation to the non-elect though faith in Christ's resurrection.

So Paul preached salvation to the non-elect through faith in a resurrection that was exclusively for the elect's justification?

Can't you see that this is incongruous and unacceptable?

My post specifically addressed it. The preaching was for those who have ears to hear. And if the non-elect did hear it, they didn't care that it wasn't for them. No incongruity at all. And perfectly acceptable.

But, again, what I pointed out to you still goes. In Isaiah God said that HE will do with HIS word what HE wants and it will not return to him void. There is nothing in the scriptures that states that everyone has to be able to respond to the invitation, to which you replied that there was, but failed to point it out beside some vague response of "Romans". If you want to discuss that specific verse, then maybe that is the one you should be focusing on. If there is nothing making that claim, then your argument is null.

 

[heymikey80]

Foreknowledge of who will and who will not believe is BASED ON what they actually choose to do. They actually have the ability to choose one way or the other (I speak synergistically of course). Attempting to taint with the same brush won't work.

It works great! Anyone will put their effort toward known results. Why would God try to reach people He knows will stay His enemy?

Same question. Iteration 2.

Foreordination excludes the non-elect form reacting positively to the gospel - they WON'T be regenerated - right?

If by positively you mean the exact same way as the elect, youre wrong. That is nothing like Calvinism.

If by positively you mean playing nice, or thinking the gospel benefits them or holds some advantage, that never saved anyone in the first place. Luke 8.

John Calvin was explicit on this:

By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.
(Institutes of the Christian Religion - Book 3, Chapter 21, Section 5)​

An astonishing statement from a Christian. You cannot equate the Arminian view with this. It is almost like holding God to account for being omniscient. The gospel should not not be preached because one knows they won't believe. God's foreknowledge is based on seeing that they never believed each time they were presented with the gospel.

And I can misquote people equally well, I just try not to. This is Calvin distinguishing Gods prescience from His predestination. God organizes the conditions people are born into as well. Not all men are kings, nor servants, nor free. God chooses the environment and the genetics. God chooses the attitudes of the heart, and how He will change it. Certainly you believe God chose how the world was made. Did God "wing it" on details? Where is His omniscience? He wasnt simply a warm Spirit above the void.

He involved Himself in tiny detail. If He did not, this tiny speck in 10^10^122^11 parsecs can be neglected in favor of much bigger parts.

Didn't understand your court analogy.

The court is interested in more than practical. It is interested in what's right.

 

[nobdysfool]

Is the poster going to engage with the OP?

I see no need. You're having your hat handed to you quite handily by the participants. At some point, you will realize that if you stop flogging the dead horse, you'll be able to catch your breath. You're trying so hard to find some sort of flaw in Calvinist theology, that you don't realize when you've lost your point. I will remind you of your statement that if Calvinist theology were proven to be true, that you would walk away from Christ. Are you still planning on making good on that?

 

[janxharris]

Or, it could (and does) mean Paul and his immediate audience.

Could Paul's statement, 'He was delivered over to death for our sins and raised to life for our justification,' ever reference the non-elect?

Why have you not responded to my charge that Calvinism leads to a contradiction here?

 

[Hammster]

Could Paul's statement, 'He was delivered over to death for our sins and raised to life for our justification,' ever reference the non-elect?

It could mean a lot of things, I suppose. But we need to understand what it does mean. We get that from context. And the context is Paul and his immediate audience.

Why have you not responded to my charge that Calvinism leads to a contradiction here?

Because there's no contradiction.

 

[janxharris]

My post specifically addressed it. The preaching was for those who have ears to hear. And if the non-elect did hear it, they didn't care that it wasn't for them. No incongruity at all. And perfectly acceptable.

You mean like Judas in Matthew 13:11?

So Paul preaching salvation to the non-elect through faith in a resurrection that was exclusively for the elect's justification is perfectly acceptable?

Let's be brutally frank for a moment - Paul is lying under such an interpretation of 'our'.

John 6:45
It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.

But, again, what I pointed out to you still goes. In Isaiah God said that HE will do with HIS word what HE wants and it will not return to him void.

God was pleased to save those who believe (1 Corinthians 1:21). Your citation doesn't really prove anything.

There is nothing in the scriptures that states that everyone has to be able to respond to the invitation, to which you replied that there was, but failed to point it out beside some vague response of "Romans". If you want to discuss that specific verse, then maybe that is the one you should be focusing on. If there is nothing making that claim, then your argument is null.

Paul quotes Deuteronomy 30 in vv.5-7 where Moses says - 'it is not too diffucult for you or beyond your reach.'

I have already posted this.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7827988-3/#post65834137

 

[janxharris]

It works great! Anyone will put their effort toward known results. Why would God try to reach people He knows will stay His enemy?

Same question. Iteration 2.

No idea why you have posted this. I showed you that foreknowledge and foreordination are not the same and you haven't responded.

If by positively you mean the exact same way as the elect, youre wrong. That is nothing like Calvinism.

If by positively you mean playing nice, or thinking the gospel benefits them or holds some advantage, that never saved anyone in the first place. Luke 8.

Again, baffled.

And I can misquote people equally well, I just try not to. This is Calvin distinguishing Gods prescience from His predestination. God organizes the conditions people are born into as well. Not all men are kings, nor servants, nor free. God chooses the environment and the genetics. God chooses the attitudes of the heart, and how He will change it. Certainly you believe God chose how the world was made. Did God "wing it" on details? Where is His omniscience? He wasnt simply a warm Spirit above the void.

Baffling in view of what I wrote. since you have not refuted me then, as it stands, you cannot tar Arminianism with the same brush.

The court is interested in more than practical. It is interested in what's right.

You have lost me.

The contradiction I have pointed out (if 'our' means the elect) stands. You have even admitted it.

 

[Skala]

And that's been the goal all along, to trap Calvinists. Isn't it?

You can't trap Calvinists because you can't trap the teachings of the Bible.

 

[janxharris]

It could mean a lot of things, I suppose. But we need to understand what it does mean. We get that from context. And the context is Paul and his immediate audience.

You suppose? You did not answer the question.

Because there's no contradiction.

My contradiction charge stands since you have not properly engaged with nor refuted it.

When it suits you, 'our' means the elect - but when it doesn't - when it leads to an anomaly that you can't deal with - you obscure it's meaning.

 

[janxharris]

You can't trap Calvinists because you can't trap the teachings of the Bible.

For the Calvinist the 'our' of Romans 4:25 means the elect:
"He was delivered over to death for our sins and raised to life for our justification."

However, Paul preached salvation to the non-elect though faith in that very resurrection that the Calvinist claim the non-elect are excluded from regarding justification. Paul would never do such a thing.

This is an anomaly which is only resolved by rejecting limited atonement which is never explicitly taught in scripture. Christ died for all and scripture says so explicitly (Hebrews 2:9). If he died for all then His resurrection was for all. Paul's gospel in Romans 10:9 only makes sense if this is the case.

 

[Hammster]

You suppose? You did not answer the question.



My contradiction charge stands since you have not properly engaged with nor refuted it.

When it suits you, 'our' means the elect - but when it doesn't - when it leads to an anomaly that you can't deal with - you obscure it's meaning.

Please back this up with some sort of evidence. You're accusing me of changing definitions to suit a need. That's a pretty heavy accusation.

 

[janxharris]

It could mean a lot of things, I suppose. But we need to understand what it does mean. We get that from context. And the context is Paul and his immediate audience.

So it can mean the non-elect?

 

[Hammster]

So it can mean the non-elect?

Yes, if context is ignored.

 

[janxharris]

Please back this up with some sort of evidence. You're accusing me of changing definitions to suit a need. That's a pretty heavy accusation.

I did not say you 'changed' definitions.

Are you going to answer the contradiction charge or not? Of course, you will have to define 'our' first - but you won't pin it down will you?

Hence what I said.

Either way, the anomaly remains unrefuted.

 

[janxharris]

Yes, if context is ignored.

Right, so you finally assert that it does not mean the non-elect.

 

[Hammster]

I did not say you 'changed' definitions.

Are you going to answer the contradiction charge or not? Of course, you will have to define 'our' first - but you won't pin it down will you?

Hence what I said.

Either way, the anomaly remains unrefuted.

I have defined "our". How many more times do I have to do it? In the context of the passage, it's Paul and his audience.

 

[janxharris]

I have defined "our". How many more times do I have to do it? In the context of the passage, it's Paul and his audience.

And you have said that it's not the non-elect.

That anomaly stands.

 

[Hammster]

Right, so you finally assert that it does not mean the non-elect.

I've not said otherwise. I think you should read what I'm writing instead of assuming I'm thinking something else.

 

[Hammster]

And you have said that it's not the non-elect.

That anomaly stands.

Of course not. There's no non-elect in a church.

The problem is you are only seeing two possibilities. Either it means everyone who has ever lived, or your contrived idea that Calvinists mean just the elect. You are ignoring what I'm saying when I say that Paul was talking about himself and his audience. In other words, you are ignoring context to make your false accusation.