Does Romans 10 disprove particular atonement?

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Don't you realise you are promoting two different gospels?

Is this what your theology forces you to do?
No, I'm not promoting two different gospels. The same conditions apply to all.

The difference is that human beings need help. God gives help. People change due to God, not to people.
 
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
No, I'm not promoting two different gospels. The same conditions apply to all.

Why did you preclude Paul preaching it to unbelievers then?

The difference is that human beings need help. God gives help. People change due to God, not to people.

We agree.
 
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
No, I'm not promoting two different gospels. The same conditions apply to all.

The difference is that human beings need help. God gives help. People change due to God, not to people.

Why this:
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.
 
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
Unconditional election isn't a problem for the non-elect then?
Are you serious?
Certainly not as Moses described the problem, as you call it.

But I point out, Paul is already talking to people looking for a way of righteousness. You're trying to assert that's the unelect.

Prove it.
'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?
So you're saying Paul is preaching it to Jewish people, when Paul has been saying for decades (cf Galatians 2) that he's sent to the Gentiles. Got it.

I hear people preaching all the time. But haven't you noticed, not everything they preach is some kind of demand. Paul is saying this is how righteousness works -- and not by the law.

I'm finding it less than credible that you're claiming they're unelect when Paul claims the opposite, btw. Rom 11:28 dumps cold water on this assumption as well.

Y'know, it's becoming apparent that there's almost nothing that can be said in favor of your view that Paul doesn't say differently from you, later.
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...
It doesn't even have the word "all" in it. But thank you for playing "add a word to Scripture". It does make it easier to distinguish what's actually said when you add words.
Two gospels? I don't think so.
Yeah. So don't add words, and you'll end up with one gospel.
It's not there.
The message is within hearing and its writing is within reach.
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.
I think it would be consistent with what he said. I don't think it would be the same.
I don't perceive an argument here. What is it?
That God takes no joy in the death of the wicked, contradicts that Jesus went to the Cross for the joy set before Him.
No idea what this means.
That God takes no joy in the death of the wicked, contradicts that Jesus went to the Cross for the joy set before Him.
It is a fact that unconditional election is the sine qua non of salvation in your view. Why are you trying to deny it?
Cite where I deny unconditional election. Or retract.
So he won't regenerate wicked men then - He would not want to participate with the wicked.
Well, by you, he won't regenerate anyone. He needs them to pick.
Revelation 3:20, John 12:32 weren't dealt with.
You want Revelation 3:20 talking TO A CHURCH, to mean universal atonement? Isn't it false on its face?

John 12:32 doesn't teach salvation, but it does teach Lordship. How about Pp 2:10 for ya? Everyone's knee will bow. But then there's Matt 25, not everyone 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
Certainly not as Moses described the problem, as you call it.

But I point out, Paul is already talking to people looking for a way of righteousness. You're trying to assert that's the unelect.

Prove it.

Paul discusses his kinsmen and how they might be saved. You have already agreed that there is only one gospel.

I have proven it.

So you're saying Paul is preaching it to Jewish people, when Paul has been saying for decades (cf Galatians 2) that he's sent to the Gentiles. Got it.

It was Paul's want to preach in the synagogues first. It is in Acts.

Acts 17:1-4
When Paul and his companions had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah,” he said. Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and quite a few prominent women.

I hear people preaching all the time. But haven't you noticed, not everything they preach is some kind of demand. Paul is saying this is how righteousness works -- and not by the law.

I'm finding it less than credible that you're claiming they're unelect when Paul claims the opposite, btw. Rom 11:28 dumps cold water on this assumption as well.

Y'know, it's becoming apparent that there's almost nothing that can be said in favor of your view that Paul doesn't say differently from you, later.

Sorry, not following this.

Yeah. So don't add words, and you'll end up with one gospel.

Okay - you agree that Paul preached v.9 to unbelievers then.

The message is within hearing and its writing is within reach.

Correct. Unconditional election says it's beyond reach. Contradiction.

I think it would be consistent with what he said. I don't think it would be the same.

Which bit of the gospel did he tweak? You have already said there is one gospel.

That God takes no joy in the death of the wicked, contradicts that Jesus went to the Cross for the joy set before Him.

That God takes no joy in the death of the wicked, contradicts that Jesus went to the Cross for the joy set before Him.

I'm not following you.

Cite where I deny unconditional election. Or retract.

This is what I said:
It is a fact that unconditional election is the sine qua non of salvation in your view. Why are you trying to deny it?

I did not say what you want me to retract.

You want Revelation 3:20 talking TO A CHURCH, to mean universal atonement? Isn't it false on its face?

v.21 To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne.

It seems that there were unsaved people in that church.

John 12:32 doesn't teach salvation, but it does teach Lordship. How about Pp 2:10 for ya? Everyone's knee will bow. But then there's Matt 25, not everyone will be saved.

Not sure you have refuted my point regarding Jn 12:32.
I don't know why you have quoted 2 Peter 2:10.
I haven't said that all will be saved.
 
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
Paul discusses his kinsmen and how they might be saved. You have already agreed that there is only one gospel.

I have proven it.
=snort!= Paul said it. Nothing to prove.
It was Paul's want to preach in the synagogues first. It is in Acts.

Acts 17:1-4
When Paul and his companions had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah,” he said. Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and quite a few prominent women.
The term is "custom", not "want"
Sorry, not following this.
You don't seem to understand the difference between "clean your room!" and "you'll find things if you clean your room"?

One is not the other.
Okay - you agree that Paul preached v.9 to unbelievers then.
Let's get a few things straight.

Paul did not preach v. 9 to unbelievers. Paul specifically directed it to the Roman saints.

Did Paul preach something like v. 9? I'm sure he did.

Did Paul mean it the exact same way he meant it when he said it to the Romans? That's unlikely. He's talking to those he is already in the fellowship of faith with. Even for Paul, that changes things dramatically. 2 Cor 9 describes this fellowship as his whole reason for preaching.
Correct. Unconditional election says it's beyond reach. Contradiction.
That's not true at all, jan.

In point of fact unconditional election says the word of faith which we preach is close at hand to elect and unelect alike.

A retraction is becoming quite necessary of you, to keep some integrity.
Which bit of the gospel did he tweak? You have already said there is one gospel.
Did you know Paul never used the same words to describe the gospel in any record of his preaching. Sorry for your view: the words change.
I'm not following you.
For whom did Christ die? He died in order to accomplish the joy set before Him. It's what Scripture says. That was Jesus' intent.

Yet you can deliver no joy of Christ for the unelect receiving, and rejecting, the gospel.

So that was not Jesus' intent.
This is what I said:
It is a fact that unconditional election is the sine qua non of salvation in your view. Why are you trying to deny it?
A critical piece of my view? My view is to follow where Scripture leads.

It seems the sine qua non of your view of salvation is the ineffectiveness of God without human choice. Why not try looking at it from other people's points of view?
I did not say what you want me to retract.
You still did not tell the truth. And yet you don't retract. Unconditional election isn't the critical component of my view. It is simply the conclusion of thinking about what God has said.
v.21 To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne.

It seems that there were unsaved people in that church.
Why would you say that? The right to sit on a throne implies people aren't saved in your view. Demonstrate that this right is nothing else. In fact, demonstrate that every saved person must gain the right to be on Jesus' throne.
Not sure you have refuted my point regarding Jn 12:32.
I don't know why you have quoted 2 Peter 2:10.
I haven't said that all will be saved.
Then why choose John 12:32? You're talking about a universal atonement. I point out that atonements atone.
 
Upvote 0

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
Paul discusses his kinsmen and how they might be saved. You have already agreed that there is only one gospel.

I have proven it.


No, you haven't. and just saying that you have is not proof that you have.
It was Paul's want to preach in the synagogues first. It is in Acts.
Want=desire. Wont=custom. Learn English. Please.
Acts 17:1-4
When Paul and his companions had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah,” he said. Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and quite a few prominent women.
Can you prove that the ones who believed him and joined him did so solely by their own choice, or was the Holy spirit involved?

Sorry, not following this.
He's basically saying that your view is self-contradictory

Okay - you agree that Paul preached v.9 to unbelievers then.
No he did not agree to that. You're jumping to conclusions, grasping at straws.

Correct. Unconditional election says it's beyond reach. Contradiction.


Nope. Failure to understand his point.

Which bit of the gospel did he tweak? You have already said there is one gospel.
Every time you preach the gospel, you can't help but tweak it a little. That is, unless you have a canned script that you never deviate from with even one word. Tweaking does not mean changing it such that it is no longer the same.

I'm not following you.
He pointing out the problems with one-verse doctrine-building. Doctrines are built on ALL of scripture, not just little snippets, like you're doing.

This is what I said:
It is a fact that unconditional election is the sine qua non of salvation in your view. Why are you trying to deny it?

I did not say what you want me to retract.
He is saying that you accused him of denying UE, when he has not. He is saying either show where he did, or retract your false accusation. I would advise you to retract it.

v.21 To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne.
It seems that there were unsaved people in that church.
An assumption on your part, really. It doesn't say that.

Not sure you have refuted my point regarding Jn 12:32.
He did, you just don't want to admit it. You dare people to refute what you have said, and when they do, you refuse to accept it, and then claim no one has refuted your point. How convenient.

I don't know why you have quoted 2 Peter 2:10.
I haven't said that all will be saved.
It's WHY you say that they won't be saved that is the point of contention.
 
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
The unbeliever wants to know why, if Christ did not die for all, Paul enjoins all to believe in the resurrection?

Unbelievers don't want to know anything of the sort! That is a concoction of your own making.
 
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
=snort!= Paul said it. Nothing to prove.

But you accept there is only one gospel. Paul preached the gospel...to all and sundry. What's to argue about?

The term is "custom", not "want"

Sorry - I meant wont. you accept that Paul preached v.9 to the Israelites then?

You don't seem to understand the difference between "clean your room!" and "you'll find things if you clean your room"?

One is not the other.

I see the difference but still don't know your original point.

Let's get a few things straight.

Paul did not preach v. 9 to unbelievers. Paul specifically directed it to the Roman saints.

Did Paul preach something like v. 9? I'm sure he did.

Did Paul mean it the exact same way he meant it when he said it to the Romans? That's unlikely. He's talking to those he is already in the fellowship of faith with. Even for Paul, that changes things dramatically. 2 Cor 9 describes this fellowship as his whole reason for preaching.

Which bits of the gospel needs tweaking please? Can we have some details?
you are making a case for two gospels.


That's not true at all, jan.

In point of fact unconditional election says the word of faith which we preach is close at hand to elect and unelect alike.

A retraction is becoming quite necessary of you, to keep some integrity.

Unconditional election puts salvation beyond the reach of the unelect - why do you demur?

Did you know Paul never used the same words to describe the gospel in any record of his preaching. Sorry for your view: the words change.

That's not the point. You are guarding against the substance of v.9 being preached to unbelievers aren't you? Correct me if I am wrong. It's preaching belief in the resurrection that troubles you isn't it?


For whom did Christ die? He died in order to accomplish the joy set before Him. It's what Scripture says. That was Jesus' intent.

Yet you can deliver no joy of Christ for the unelect receiving, and rejecting, the gospel.

So that was not Jesus' intent.

Can you make this argument from scripture please?

A critical piece of my view? My view is to follow where Scripture leads.

It seems the sine qua non of your view of salvation is the ineffectiveness of God without human choice. Why not try looking at it from other people's points of view?

This is what I said:
It is a fact that unconditional election is the sine qua non of salvation in your view.

Was that a yes or no?

You still did not tell the truth. And yet you don't retract. Unconditional election isn't the critical component of my view. It is simply the conclusion of thinking about what God has said.

What?

Why would you say that? The right to sit on a throne implies people aren't saved in your view. Demonstrate that this right is nothing else. In fact, demonstrate that every saved person must gain the right to be on Jesus' throne.

Not sure anything prevents my interpretation.

Then why choose John 12:32? You're talking about a universal atonement. I point out that atonements atone.

Only those that believe have their sins atoned for - but all may believe.
 
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
No, you haven't. and just saying that you have is not proof that you have.

Which bit needs tweaking for the unsaved please?

Want=desire. Wont=custom. Learn English. Please.

Good call.

Can you prove that the ones who believed him and joined him did so solely by their own choice, or was the Holy spirit involved?

No man will do so alone.

No he did not agree to that. You're jumping to conclusions, grasping at straws.

Paul would have preached the substance of v.9 to unbelievers.
Please explain what you think needs changing.

Nope. Failure to understand his point.

You could have explained...

Every time you preach the gospel, you can't help but tweak it a little. That is, unless you have a canned script that you never deviate from with even one word. Tweaking does not mean changing it such that it is no longer the same.

Okay, so Paul did preach the substance of v.9 to the unsaved.

He pointing out the problems with one-verse doctrine-building. Doctrines are built on ALL of scripture, not just little snippets, like you're doing.

Assertion.

He is saying that you accused him of denying UE, when he has not. He is saying either show where he did, or retract your false accusation. I would advise you to retract it.

I did not accuse him of denying ue.

An assumption on your part, really. It doesn't say that.

We both assume I think.

He did, you just don't want to admit it. You dare people to refute what you have said, and when they do, you refuse to accept it, and then claim no one has refuted your point. How convenient.

It's WHY you say that they won't be saved that is the point of contention.

?
 
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

janxharris

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

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 Calvinism's theological view then we come, inexorably, to an anomaly.

No Calvinist has refuted this.
 
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
Originally Posted by A New Dawn View Post
Unbelievers don't want to know anything of the sort! That is a concoction of your own making.

My mother just asked me - she's not a believer. No concoction.
^_^
 
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
No, I'm not promoting two different gospels. The same conditions apply to all.

The difference is that human beings need help. God gives help. People change due to God, not to people.

Okay, let's see this then - please would you repost the following (assume unsaved people will read your post):

To anyone reading this: If you declare with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
 
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
Okay, let's see this then - please would you repost the following (assume unsaved people will read your post):
"All those believing in Jesus should not perish but have eternal life."

I believe if you were to take a look at James' qualification you would see the dismal consequences of simply affirming facts. "Why, even demons believe that ... and shudder."

Although ai do believe that someone who relies on Jesus as Lord and knows he has been raised from the dead, he will be saved. But ... you know that demons know Jesus is Lord, and that Jesus was raised.
 
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

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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):
Because it is true.

What, you want apostles to spread a lie? Sorry, that just isn't right.

Once again, you realize all people shall find this to be true. The Apostles knew that early recognition was a sign that someone was elect.
 
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
"All those believing in Jesus should not perish but have eternal life."

I believe if you were to take a look at James' qualification you would see the dismal consequences of simply affirming facts. "Why, even demons believe that ... and shudder."

Although ai do believe that someone who relies on Jesus as Lord and knows he has been raised from the dead, he will be saved. But ... you know that demons know Jesus is Lord, and that Jesus was raised.

Can I ask why you didn't/won't preach v.9 to unbelievers? It is the gospel that Paul preached. You said that there is only one gospel.
 
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
Because it is true.

What, you want apostles to spread a lie? Sorry, that just isn't right.

Once again, you realize all people shall find this to be true. The Apostles knew that early recognition was a sign that someone was elect.

Right - in your view Romans 4:25 confirms limited atonement. Now would you respond to the question which your assertion demands:

The unbeliever wants to know why, if Christ did not die for all, Paul enjoins all to believe in the resurrection?

(You said there was one gospel and v.9 is the gospel).
 
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
"All those believing in Jesus should not perish but have eternal life."

I believe if you were to take a look at James' qualification you would see the dismal consequences of simply affirming facts. "Why, even demons believe that ... and shudder."

Although ai do believe that someone who relies on Jesus as Lord and knows he has been raised from the dead, he will be saved. But ... you know that demons know Jesus is Lord, and that Jesus was raised.

v.9 is, 'the word of faith that we preach,' Paul says. He's just spoken about his desire for the salvation of his kinsmen and v.9 is what they can do to be saved.

I think your theology is forcing you to preach two gospels. One for the saved and one for the unsaved. That you would not post v.9 would seem to be proof.
 
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

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Can I ask why you didn't/won't preach v.9 to unbelievers? It is the gospel that Paul preached. You said that there is only one gospel.
You read the reason why. Pauls is a listing of the facts, he already knows they rely on Christ.

Or are you claiming only knowledge gets you "in?" Do people know, who are nevertheless opposed to Christ?
 
Upvote 0