Does Romans 10 disprove particular atonement?

Skala

I'm a Saint. Not because of me, but because of Him
Mar 15, 2011
8,964
478
✟27,869.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
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."

Actually, for Calvinists, the "our" means whoever Paul is talking about. Who is he talking about?

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.

Are you saying that in your view, some of the non-elect will be saved?
 
Upvote 0

janxharris

Veteran
Jun 10, 2010
7,562
55
Essex, UK
Visit site
✟36,397.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
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.

No attempt to answer the anomaly then?

You have said it's not the non-elect. Why the need to explain further?
Contrived idea? What are you talking about?
 
Upvote 0

janxharris

Veteran
Jun 10, 2010
7,562
55
Essex, UK
Visit site
✟36,397.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Actually, for Calvinists, the "our" means whoever Paul is talking about. Who is he talking about?

7 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people:

This would be the elect per your definition.

Are you saying that in your view, some of the non-elect will be saved?

I don't use the word as you do. The elect are the whosoever wills so there is no contradiction for the Arminian.

You have not answered the anomaly and I say Calvinism cannot deal with it.
 
Upvote 0

A New Dawn

God is bigger than the boogeyman!
Mar 18, 2004
70,094
7,684
Raxacoricofallapatorius
Visit site
✟119,554.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Bumping for janxharris.

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.
 
Upvote 0

janxharris

Veteran
Jun 10, 2010
7,562
55
Essex, UK
Visit site
✟36,397.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
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 have no idea why you have written this.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,178
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,526.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
No attempt to answer the anomaly then?

You have said it's not the non-elect. Why the need to explain further?
Contrived idea? What are you talking about?

You aren't listening.

It's not the non-elect because it's written to the local church. Paul has himself and the local church in view here. You still refuse to look at it as a letter to a local church.

It's as if I wrote you a letter and said "Hey Jan, blah, blah, blah...being a sinner is terrible. I struggle a lot with my sin, and you do too. It's great that we can say Christ died for our sins". Since it would be a personal note, you'd have to go outside of what I said to think I meant that Christ died for everyone. I would mean you and I.

So no anomaly. Paul isn't saying "our" means all of the elect, not is he saying that "our" means everyone who has ever lived. It's strictly him and them.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,178
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,526.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
7 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people:

This would be the elect per your definition.



I don't use the word as you do. The elect are the whosoever wills so there is no contradiction for the Arminian.

You have not answered the anomaly and I say Calvinism cannot deal with it.

Thank you for pointing out who Paul is writing to. That's who is included in "our".
 
Upvote 0

janxharris

Veteran
Jun 10, 2010
7,562
55
Essex, UK
Visit site
✟36,397.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
You aren't listening.

It's not the non-elect because it's written to the local church. Paul has himself and the local church in view here. You still refuse to look at it as a letter to a local church.

It's as if I wrote you a letter and said "Hey Jan, blah, blah, blah...being a sinner is terrible. I struggle a lot with my sin, and you do too. It's great that we can say Christ died for our sins". Since it would be a personal note, you'd have to go outside of what I said to think I meant that Christ died for everyone. I would mean you and I.

So no anomaly. Paul isn't saying "our" means all of the elect, not is he saying that "our" means everyone who has ever lived. It's strictly him and them.

Regardless, you think that Paul would only ever direct such a statement to believers - to the elect. That Paul is specifically addressing Romans in no way alters whom you think 'our' refers to.

25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

Per your view, 'our' is established as elect Romans but by extension means all the elect exclusively. Ditto with the second 'our'.

For Paul to preach v.9 to the non-elect remains an anomaly for you.
 
Upvote 0

janxharris

Veteran
Jun 10, 2010
7,562
55
Essex, UK
Visit site
✟36,397.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Thank you for pointing out who Paul is writing to. That's who is included in "our".

You are fiddling while Rome burns are you? You think your definition of 'our' gets your theology off the hook? Just because you won't explicitly say it means the elect?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,178
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,526.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Regardless, you think that Paul would only ever direct such a statement to believers - to the elect. That Paul is specifically addressing Romans in no way alters whom you think 'our' refers to.

25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

Per your view, 'our' is established as elect Romans but by extension means all the elect exclusively. Ditto with the second 'our'.

For Paul to preach v.9 to the non-elect remains an anomaly for you.

Regardless? So you disregard (note: not refuted) my point just so you can keep on with this charade of an argument?
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,178
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,526.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
You are fiddling while Rome burns are you? You think your definition of 'our' gets your theology off the hook? Just because you won't explicitly say it means the elect?

You mean, because I won't specifically say something Paul didn't mean
 
Upvote 0

janxharris

Veteran
Jun 10, 2010
7,562
55
Essex, UK
Visit site
✟36,397.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
You mean, because I won't specifically say something Paul didn't mean

Since Paul asserts that (per your view) Christ was delivered over to death for the sins of Paul and the believers of Rome, and resurrected for their justification, then he would say exactly the same for any true believer.

That is the elect.

You are splitting hairs in order to extricate Calvinism from the just charge I have brought against it.

It remains the case that Paul preaches salvation inappropriately (per your theology).
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,178
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,526.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Since Paul asserts that (per your view) Christ was delivered over to death for the sins of Paul and the believers of Rome, and resurrected for their justification, then he would say exactly the same for any true believer.

That is the elect.

Yes, he would say that to any true believer. Even in your theology. Now you are getting it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,178
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,526.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. (1 John 2:19 NASB)

Right. He's not talking about true believers. So they were not part of the church of Christ.
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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.
It's always more complicated than people want, though Paul clears up exactly who he is addressing in Rom 1:7, beloved of God, called to be saints. Granted, they're the people Paul assumes are in his audience.

Interesting as well that even John distinguished "they" from "us".
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. (1 John 2:19 NASB)

Right. He's not talking about true believers. So they were not part of the church of Christ.
'Scuze me, but "the church of Christ" was not what was in your post. Here's a refresher on that post:

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

I do believe that the word "a church" is quite different in meaning than "the church of Christ". Unless one ignores the meanings of words. ;)
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,178
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,526.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
'Scuze me, but "the church of Christ" was not what was in your post. Here's a refresher on that post:

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

I do believe that the word "a church" is quite different in meaning than "the church of Christ". Unless one ignores the meanings of words. ;)

Since I know what I meant, I know what I meant. Sorry to disappoint.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

nobdysfool

The original! Accept no substitutes!
Feb 23, 2003
15,018
1,006
Home, except when I'm not....
✟21,146.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
You are splitting hairs in order to extricate Calvinism from the just charge I have brought against it.

Actually, it is YOU who is splitting hairs to keep alive a bogus argument that has been thoroughly eviscerated. It is also very disingenuous to be attempting to tell Calvinists (or anyone else) what Calvinists believe. It is clear that you do not understand what you think to oppose.
 
Upvote 0