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.