Does Romans 10 disprove particular atonement?

janxharris · Jun 21, 2014

Hammster said:
And please, don't add to scripture.

It's not the 'adding' that is the problem. If we 'added' the Arminian understanding to Romans 10 there is no contradiction. It's your theology that is the problem.

So please quit with this charge.

Hammster · Jun 21, 2014

janxharris said:
You didn't respond to my post because you have no answer to the anomaly.

Paul said that faith is not like ascending into heaven - so belief in the resurrection is not excluded from some men.

There's no anomaly. I'll say again, anyone who believes will be saved. The only anomaly would be if we believed that someone who did believe in the resurrection would not be saved. That's found in your Arminianism.

Hammster · Jun 21, 2014

janxharris said:
It's not the 'adding' that is the problem. If we 'added' the Arminian understanding to Romans 10 there is no contradiction. It's your theology that is the problem.

So please quit with this charge.

It's not a false charge. You add faith to 4:25 and beliefs that the resurrection is for everyone in 10:9.

nobdysfool · Jun 21, 2014

FreeGrace2 said:
To be clear, I've never asked for any "specific words". What I do demand are verses that clearly communicate the claims of Calvinism, which, to date, has not been done.

Where's the clear concept that Christ didn't die for everyone?
Where's the clear concept that God chooses who will believe?

Maybe the real lazy ones are those who make claims about what the Bible teaches, but just can't seem to find them.

And maybe I wasn't talking to you. Ever consider that?

FreeGrace2 · Jun 21, 2014

nobdysfool said:
And maybe I wasn't talking to you. Ever consider that?

That didn't matter at all. The point remains. Ever consider that?

janxharris · Jun 21, 2014

Hammster said:
There's no anomaly. I'll say again, anyone who believes will be saved. The only anomaly would be if we believed that someone who did believe in the resurrection would not be saved. That's found in your Arminianism.

You are ignoring (again) Paul's citation of Moses to the effect that faith is not too difficult or beyond reach. That flies in the face of unconditional election and limited atonement. How many times do I have to say say it?

For you, God raised Christ up to justify those whom He unconditionally elected - correct?
For you, God did not raise Christ up to justify the remainder of men - the non-elect - correct? If you answer 'yes' and 'yes', then you have a unresolvable problem: what is Paul doing preaching salvation to the non-elect through belief in that VERY resurrection - the one which, in your theology, you have excluded them from?

Fitting your theology (I'm not 'adding') to the text - Paul, whom you say has just (in the previous chapter) established unconditional election, is preaching salvation which is not too difficult or beyond their reach to those that were predetermined to NEVER BE SAVED.

Reductio ad absurdum.

janxharris · Jun 21, 2014

Hammster said:
It's not a false charge. You add faith to 4:25

Faith is the context of Romans 4. Your charge is false.

and beliefs that the resurrection is for everyone in 10:9.

What business has Paul preaching belief in an event that was not 'for everyone' as you say?

Sure Christ rose from the dead for all men - you can't preach belief in it unto salvation with any integrity if God predetermined not to.

janxharris · Jun 21, 2014

Hammster said:
There's no anomaly. I'll say again, anyone who believes will be saved.

Are you going to to explain to any unbeliever who has just read your post that, actually, God may have chosen to not raise Christ up for their justification (seeing as Christ did not die for all men), so your words are in no sense at all an offer, but merely a reflection on what has already been fixed by God?

They want to know why they are being asked to believe in a resurrection from which they may have been excluded by God from?

They want to know why Moses said, 'it is not too difficult or beyond your reach.'

Your theology has been shown to lead to absurdity.

nobdysfool · Jun 21, 2014

The absurdity here is the continual asserting that which just flat-out is not so. Trying to create a problem where none exists. What do you hope to accomplish?

janxharris · Jun 22, 2014

nobdysfool said:
The absurdity here is the continual asserting that which just flat-out is not so. Trying to create a problem where none exists. What do you hope to accomplish?

The unbeliever wants to know why, if Christ did not die for all, Paul enjoins all to believe in the resurrection? Calvinists cite Romans 4:25 when defending limited atonement (just google it to see that it is so):

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

The non-elect are excluded under your theology (your interpretation of Romans 9 establishes unconditional election) - but, nevertheless, Paul enjoins them to believe it. Astonishing.

Your theology has been shown to lead to an absurdity. It's simply untenable.

janxharris · Jun 22, 2014

Calvinists have long argued against ever preaching, 'Christ died for our sins,' to the unsaved, and yet here we have Paul presenting Christ's resurrection to all men to be believed in unto salvation. If the resurrection was not for all, then Paul is guilty of gross deception, but we know that cannot be true.

This is incontrovertible proof that Christ died for all.

janxharris · Jun 22, 2014

nobdysfool said:
The absurdity here is the continual asserting that which just flat-out is not so.

Asserting that what has been argued is 'flat-out not so' demonstrates nothing and refutes nothing.

If Paul establishes unconditional election in Romans 9 then he's playing fast and loose (with those who are not elect) when he preaches the gospel in Romans 10. So we would have:

1. God elects unconditionally sending Christ to die only for the elect and so His resurrection has no salvific relevance for the non-elect.
2. Paul Preaches belief in that very same resurrection to the non-elect.

I have demonstrated that when Romans 10 is exegeted whilst assuming your theological view then we come, inexorably, to an anomaly.

You haven't dealt with it.

.

janxharris · Jun 22, 2014

Hammster said:
There's no anomaly. I'll say again, anyone who believes will be saved. The only anomaly would be if we believed that someone who did believe in the resurrection would not be saved. That's found in your Arminianism.

Does Christ's resurrection have any salvific relevance for those whom you say God did not choose when he unconditionally elected?

heymikey80 · Jun 22, 2014

janxharris said:
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).

I don't think you have noticed the plain fact on the face of it. So I'll repeat it.

Paul wrote descriptively. He didn't write imeperitively.

Consider if Paul expected the elect and nonelect in the visible church to read what he said. No victory for unlimited atonement. Paul is writing out the facts of how people are saved. They're true even if someone does not believe.

So your attempt to make this unlimited atonement is based on some desire for this to be an appeal, an invitation to the unelect. It's not there, but now you've tried to push that failure into victory by alleging that because Paul may well expect some of the unelect to hear a message directed at "saints in Rome", that somehow the atonement is unlimited.

First, this renders your atonement "inadvertent". At best. Paul didn't intend anything of the sort. This nuance means some people read other people's mail. If that's how Christianity spreads, it's nowhere near what you say it is.

But second, Paul still didn't make an appeal to the unelect. He didn't. There is no appeal in Romans 10 to the unelect.

Finally, what would an appeal to the unelect imply? Not what you want it to. It seems to imply to you that Calvinism is wrong. Yet there are perfectly good reasons to tell the criminal beforehand, what is expected of him. Didja read Romans 5:12-14? Paul has already explained why that's the case. And yet God knew no one would satisfy that set of demands. Not even one. How futile the law becomes to this view. Yet God Himself wrote the law -- and no one denies it held authority over the elect and unelect alike.

No, there's a perfectly good reason to make the appeal to the unelect: it's called the bounds of propriety. Clearly evil results in the death. Not telling people would be the evil action. Further, there's only one path out. Again, not telling people would be the evil action. The information is necessary to save the elect. But not telling people would deprive them of information that, should they have the Spirit (a fact we do not know), they would be left unaware.

The presence or absence of the Spirit of God is not something God's ordained evangelists knew, or know. In fact no one knows. Jesus said so. So we tell everyone and look for response.

What's it say to the unelect? It says the unelect had only their own evil will to blame for not accepting Christ. The sin, the error lies in the one who withheld the good path, whether or not the evil person would follow it.

And why would anyone expect an evil person to follow a good path, least of all God? Yet the assertion is that Paul must be a liar not to expect an evil person to follow a good path. Well, what does that make God?

janxharris · Jun 22, 2014

heymikey80 said:
I don't think you have noticed the plain fact on the face of it. So I'll repeat it.

Paul wrote descriptively. He didn't write imeperitively.

Consider if Paul expected the elect and nonelect in the visible church to read what he said. No victory for unlimited atonement. Paul is writing out the facts of how people are saved. They're true even if someone does not believe.

No Paul explicitly cites Moses - which clearly says, it's not too difficult or beyond your reach.'
Unconditional election puts salvation beyond reach.
That is a contradiction.

So your attempt to make this unlimited atonement is based on some desire for this to be an appeal, an invitation to the unelect. It's not there, but now you've tried to push that failure into victory by alleging that because Paul may well expect some of the unelect to hear a message directed at "saints in Rome", that somehow the atonement is unlimited.

Paul says this Romans 10:8-9:
But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Paul and others preached (and we are called to preach) v.9.

First, this renders your atonement "inadvertent". At best. Paul didn't intend anything of the sort. This nuance means some people read other people's mail. If that's how Christianity spreads, it's nowhere near what you say it is.

False - Paul called for the preaching of the (this) gospel in vv. 14-15.

But second, Paul still didn't make an appeal to the unelect. He didn't. There is no appeal in Romans 10 to the unelect.

See previous. You are wrong.

Finally, what would an appeal to the unelect imply? Not what you want it to. It seems to imply to you that Calvinism is wrong. Yet there are perfectly good reasons to tell the criminal beforehand, what is expected of him. Didja read Romans 5:12-14? Paul has already explained why that's the case. And yet God knew no one would satisfy that set of demands. Not even one. How futile the law becomes to this view. Yet God Himself wrote the law -- and no one denies it held authority over the elect and unelect alike.

And yet faith is, as Moses put it, 'not too difficult or beyond your reach.'

No, there's a perfectly good reason to make the appeal to the unelect: it's called the bounds of propriety. Clearly evil results in the death. Not telling people would be the evil action. Further, there's only one path out. Again, not telling people would be the evil action. The information is necessary to save the elect. But not telling people would deprive them of information that, should they have the Spirit (a fact we do not know), they would be left unaware.

You are not addressing the fact that Paul has a heart's desire and expounds to his kinsmen about how to be saved as opposed to continuing to 'establish their own righteousness.'

You make Paul disingenuous.

The presence or absence of the Spirit of God is not something God's ordained evangelists knew, or know. In fact no one knows. Jesus said so. So we tell everyone and look for response.

Paul lied under your theology. Christ's resurrection has no salvific relevance for some men in your view, and yet Paul enjoins belief in it to those same men.

What's it say to the unelect? It says the unelect had only their own evil will to blame for not accepting Christ. The sin, the error lies in the one who withheld the good path, whether or not the evil person would follow it.

False - under your theology the ONLY bit that makes a difference is unconditional election.

And why would anyone expect an evil person to follow a good path, least of all God? Yet the assertion is that Paul must be a liar not to expect an evil person to follow a good path. Well, what does that make God?

You assume man is without God's influence. Revelation 3:20, John 12:32.

EmSw · Jun 22, 2014

heymikey80 said:
...And yet God knew no one would satisfy that set of demands. Not even one. How futile the law becomes to this view. Yet God Himself wrote the law -- and no one denies it held authority over the elect and unelect alike.

Hey Mikey, did you find any laws, ordinances, commands, or statutes, if kept and obeyed by man, brought condemnation?

Also, did you find anywhere in the OT, that the law was only given to show us our sins?

heymikey80 · Jun 22, 2014

janxharris said:
No Paul explicitly cites Moses - which clearly says, it's not too difficult or beyond your reach.'
Unconditional election puts salvation beyond reach.
That is a contradiction.

No. You took a really clear concrete statement and tried to make it abstract. Moses said it -- nobody has to bring it across the sea to deliver it, bring it up from the depths, down from heaven. It's right here. That was the difficulty resolved.

Same's true of the gospel, for both the elect and unelect. In fact Paul emphasizes it for the gospel: "(that is, to bring Christ down), ... (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)" Rom 10:6-7 It's reallyreally obvious.

And a we've already mentioned, this is about Paul arguing against one strategy of righteousness and advocating another. He's talking to two different kinds of righteousness -- not all universal kinds of evil in men.

Paul is not even close to speaking universally, jan. You can't even get Paul to talk to everyone. He's talking about Jewish people, you say, but no, Paul is talking to those Jewish people deceived into thinking righteousness is something it's not (9:31-33).

So we're at best talking about people looking for righteousness in all the wrong places. That isn't everybody. In fact, we would expect people looking for God's righteousness, and uninformed about Christ's righteousness, to be ... elect.

This is a passage that you've already admitted, is ethnically-specific. And here y'are trying to make it universal. I'm baffled why anyone would attempt this, but you can't get there from here. The door is triply closed, any one of the three arguments would stop your attempt.

janxharris said:
Paul says this Romans 10:8-9:
But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

1- Second person is clearly, obviously directed at the recipients of Paul's mail.
2- There's not a single imperitive in that statement.

Understand: imperitive doesn't exist as a different form of the verb in English. For all this may sound like it in English, it isn't. Imperitive exists in Greek, and it is in use at this time in history. It is not in use in this verse.

janxharris said:
Paul and others preached (and we are called to preach) v.9.

Where did Paul say, "Oh, go preach Romans 10:9. I did."

janxharris said:
False - Paul called for the preaching of the (this) gospel in vv. 14-15.

Nope. He asked how will people call on the Lord without a preacher. He did not state, "This is what to preach."

janxharris said:
See previous. You are wrong.

et tu.

janxharris said:
And yet faith is, as Moses put it, 'not too difficult or beyond your reach.'

Physically difficult, beyond physical reach.

janxharris said:
You are not addressing the fact that Paul has a heart's desire and expounds to his kinsmen about how to be saved as opposed to continuing to 'establish their own righteousness.'

Because Paul explicitly doesn't address this to them.

Look at the verses you're quoting as preaching to "them"! It's THIRD PERSON!

His statement in 10:9-10 is SECOND PERSON.

Quite a difference.

janxharris said:
You make Paul disingenuous.

And you make his grammar silly.

janxharris said:
Paul lied under your theology. Christ's resurrection has no salvific relevance for some men in your view, and yet Paul enjoins belief in it to those same men.

And God lied under your theology. Christ must die looking forward to the REJECTION of the MANY (Heb 12:2).

janxharris said:
False - under your theology the ONLY bit that makes a difference is unconditional election.

"False. Under your theology Christ is joyous at sending people to Hell. Heb 12:2." See how stupid it sounds when you try to attack a viewpoint you don't completely comprehend?

janxharris said:
You assume man is without God's influence. Revelation 3:20, John 12:32.

And you're being inane. I assume God has quite a bit more influence than you think. He built the world you and I consist in, as well as us, and our inner thoughts and world. We better start getting used to that kind of intensity of power.

I just don't think He enjoys dealing with wickedness. I take Him at His word when He says He has no part with the wicked.

Do you really believe the Spirit is in there participating with the wicked to continue in their evil?

janxharris · Jun 22, 2014

heymikey80 said:
No. You took a really clear concrete statement and tried to make it abstract. Moses said it -- nobody has to bring it across the sea to deliver it, bring it up from the depths, down from heaven. It's right here. That was the difficulty resolved.

Same's true of the gospel, for both the elect and unelect.

Unconditional election isn't a problem for the non-elect then?
Are you serious?

1- Second person is clearly, obviously directed at the recipients of Paul's mail.
2- There's not a single imperitive in that statement.

Understand: imperitive doesn't exist as a different form of the verb in English. It exists in Greek, and it is in use at this time.

'the word of faith, which we preach' - that is present tense and we know Paul preached where Christ was not known (Romans 15:20). Paul has just described his heart's desire for the salvation of kinsmen and v.9 is the remedy. You think he is just going to leave it there and not actual go out and proclaim it?

Where did Paul say, "Oh, go preach Romans 10:9. I did."

Nope. He asked how will people call on the Lord without a preacher. He did not state, "This is what to preach."

So, this is what we preach...v.9...but when you go out and preach the gospel make sure it's not this one...tweak it a bit 'cos this one proves Christ died for all...

Two gospels? I don't think so.

Physically difficult, beyond physical reach.

It's not there.

Because Paul explicitly doesn't address this to them.

Look at the verses you're quoting as preaching to "them"! It's THIRD PERSON!

His statement in 10:9-10 is SECOND PERSON.

Quite a difference.

Correct - he does not speak to them directly. If Paul met an unsaved Israelite - what do you think he would do? I say he would say pretty much the same as he does in Rom 10.

And God lied under your theology. Christ must die looking forward to the REJECTION of the MANY (Heb 12:2).

I don't perceive an argument here. What is it?

"False. Under your theology Christ is joyous at sending people to Hell. Heb 12:2." See how stupid it sounds when you try to attack a viewpoint you don't completely comprehend?

No idea what this means.
It is a fact that unconditional election is the sine qua non of salvation in your view. Why are you trying to deny it?

And you're being inane. I assume God has quite a bit more influence than you think. He built the world you and I consist in, as well as us, and our inner thoughts and world. We better start getting used to that kind of intensity of power.

I just don't think He enjoys dealing with wickedness. I take Him at His word when He says He has no part with the wicked.

Do you really believe the Spirit is in there participating with the wicked to continue in their evil?

So he won't regenerate wicked men then - He would not want to participate with the wicked.

Revelation 3:20, John 12:32 weren't dealt with.

janxharris · Jun 22, 2014

heymikey80 said:
Where did Paul say, "Oh, go preach Romans 10:9. I did."

Nope. He asked how will people call on the Lord without a preacher. He did not state, "This is what to preach."

Don't you realise you are promoting two different gospels?

Is this what your theology forces you to do?

janxharris · Jun 22, 2014

heymikey80 said:
Where did Paul say, "Oh, go preach Romans 10:9. I did."

Nope. He asked how will people call on the Lord without a preacher. He did not state, "This is what to preach."

Where does anyone specify a gospel for believers and a gospel for unbelievers?

Does Romans 10 disprove particular atonement?

Veteran

Psalm 144:1

Psalm 144:1

The original! Accept no substitutes!

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

The original! Accept no substitutes!

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur

Veteran

White Horse Rider

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Similar threads