Does Romans 10 disprove particular atonement?

heymikey80 · Jun 22, 2014

janxharris said:
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.

I think you are trying to condense faith into a couple of facts. The message of faith is set upon facts, yes. But it is not the facts. It is the faith, the reliance on the Man, not simply an assent to facts.

heymikey80 · Jun 22, 2014

janxharris said:
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.

Nah. I simply dont like the way it is shallowed down in English.

Even in Greek, it isn't a couple of facts. That first item in Greek is a commitment. So it is actually pretty good if translated better.

But it is not a plea. In fact it is further away from a plea. It is a statement of whose side you're on. It is something that will be offensive to most unbelievers of the time. It is a subversion of Caesar.

Do you even comprehend the problem of cherry picking one sentence as the gospel? Think about telling a polytheist what Paul is saying. He also might have no problem: "Oh, just like Apollos raising the Sun. I gotcha, I sacrifice to Apollo too."

"Eh, no."

nobdysfool · Jun 22, 2014

Show us where Paul preached verse 9 to unbelievers.

Paul goes on to say that not all have obeyed the Gospel. Even with the preachers. He then supplies the missing element: Faith. And tells us how faith comes. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing (comes) by the Word of God. The Word of God is not just words, it is a Person: Jesus. Unless Jesus is involved (via the Holy Spirit), faith (saving faith) will not be present, and no one will obey the Gospel. This completely destroys the idea that man has the natural ability to believe the Gospel. He does not.

You have agreed that no man will believe without help. That help would be the Holy Spirit and the nature of that help is regeneration, which MUST happen before saving faith can enter, via the hearing and understanding of the Gospel.

janxharris · Jun 22, 2014

nobdysfool said:
Show us where Paul preached verse 9 to unbelievers.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7827988-27/#post65864768

Paul goes on to say that not all have obeyed the Gospel. Even with the preachers. He then supplies the missing element: Faith. And tells us how faith comes. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing (comes) by the Word of God. The Word of God is not just words, it is a Person: Jesus. Unless Jesus is involved (via the Holy Spirit), faith (saving faith) will not be present, and no one will obey the Gospel. This completely destroys the idea that man has the natural ability to believe the Gospel. He does not.

I agree.

You have agreed that no man will believe without help. That help would be the Holy Spirit and the nature of that help is regeneration, which MUST happen before saving faith can enter, via the hearing and understanding of the Gospel.

We disagree on on the details here.

janxharris · Jun 22, 2014

nobdysfool said:
Show us where Paul preached verse 9 to unbelievers.

Paul goes on to say that not all have obeyed the Gospel. Even with the preachers. He then supplies the missing element: Faith. And tells us how faith comes. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing (comes) by the Word of God. The Word of God is not just words, it is a Person: Jesus. Unless Jesus is involved (via the Holy Spirit), faith (saving faith) will not be present, and no one will obey the Gospel. This completely destroys the idea that man has the natural ability to believe the Gospel. He does not.

You have agreed that no man will believe without help. That help would be the Holy Spirit and the nature of that help is regeneration, which MUST happen before saving faith can enter, via the hearing and understanding of the Gospel.

You are promoting the preaching of two gospels - one for believers and one for unbelievers.

Please show us where Paul, or anyone else, precludes the preaching of v.9 to unbelievers?

.

janxharris · Jun 22, 2014

heymikey80 said:
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?

You are promoting two gospels. Christ told his disciples to preach the gospel to all creation.

Where does Paul guard against the exact words of v.9 being preached when he calls for the gospel to be preached?

Paul explicitly says: the word of faith that we preach.

There is no preclusion anywhere in scripture.

Are you sure you want to continue on this line of reasoning?

See http://www.christianforums.com/t7827988-27/#post65864768 for why we know what was preached to all men.

janxharris · Jun 23, 2014

heymikey80 said:
I think you are trying to condense faith into a couple of facts. The message of faith is set upon facts, yes. But it is not the facts. It is the faith, the reliance on the Man, not simply an assent to facts.

Of course.

My charge of two gospels remains.

You said this is what you preach: "All those believing in Jesus should not perish but have eternal life."

This subtly avoids any suggestion that all of those addressed may believe - for your doctrine of election shapes your words.

janxharris · Jun 23, 2014

heymikey80 said:
Nah. I simply dont like the way it is shallowed down in English.

Even in Greek, it isn't a couple of facts. That first item in Greek is a commitment. So it is actually pretty good if translated better.

But it is not a plea. In fact it is further away from a plea. It is a statement of whose side you're on. It is something that will be offensive to most unbelievers of the time. It is a subversion of Caesar.

Do you even comprehend the problem of cherry picking one sentence as the gospel? Think about telling a polytheist what Paul is saying. He also might have no problem: "Oh, just like Apollos raising the Sun. I gotcha, I sacrifice to Apollo too."

"Eh, no."

I accused you of preaching two gospels. That's pretty serious.

v.9 is not easy believism. It must be genuine.

I'm baffled over what you have written here.

janxharris · Jun 23, 2014

Romans 10:6-9
But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above: ) Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) 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 has been expressing his heart's desire for the salvation of his kinsmen, stating their error and the remedy. Verse 9 represents what it is that they must do. In vv.14-15 Paul calls for the gospel to be preached. Where does Paul scruple (as Calvinists seem to do) over proclaiming the very words of v.9 to the unsaved? He doesn't, quite clearly.

1 Corinthians 15:1-4
1 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

Paul preached vv. 3-4 to the Corinthians when they did not believe - he reminds them of what he said. He explicitly says, 'which you received.' 'Received' is in the past tense.

Here's what Paul says about when he first came to them:

1 Corinthians 2:1-2
And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

Paul preached primarily to the unsaved:

Romans 15:20
It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation.

1 Corinthians 15:11
Whether, then it is I or they (the apostles), this is what we preach (present tense), and this is what you believed (past tense).

The 'this' here refers to it's antecedent - vv. 3-4 (For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures).

janxharris · Jun 23, 2014

It appears that some deny that Romans 10:9 was and is to be preached to unbelievers. In verses 14-15 Paul says:
How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”
Paul calls for the preaching of the gospel. Verse 9 (just five verse back) is the gospel. What more needs to be said?

This perhaps: if we are not to preach the gospel of v.9 to unbelievers then we have two gospels - not one.

.

janxharris · Jun 23, 2014

Does Paul call for the preaching of the Gospel? Yes he does (vv.14-15)

Is v.9 the Gospel? Yes it is - 'the word of faith we preach.'

Does Paul preclude the preaching of v.9? No, he does not.

Q.E.D.

janxharris · Jun 23, 2014

nobdysfool said:
Show us where Paul preached verse 9 to unbelievers.

Why would you even consider that Paul did not do so?

nobdysfool · Jun 23, 2014

Are you done with your diatribe and accusations? How you could make some of them shows just how desperate you are to gain some sort of victory over Calvinists.

I never said that Paul did not preach verse 9 to unbelievers. That is your made-up false accusation. Show me where I ever made that statement. I am asking you to back up your assertions and accusation with more than just words.

You seem to have this odd notion that the idea of particular atonement presents some sort of problem to preaching the gospel. What you are ignoring is that verse 9 can be preached to unbelievers, and unless the Holy Spirit specifically and deliberately opens their hearts (via regeneration) to hear and understand, they will reject it and therefore not believe and not be saved.

The Atonement has nothing directly to do with that. You're trying to put a square peg in a round hole, and then getting upset with Calvinists when it doesn't fit and won't go in. In some circles, this would be classified as a 'Tempest in a Teapot'.

Also, consider that verse 9 is in the form 'If A, and B, then C'. It is a statement of the certainty of what will happen (C), once the conditions are present (A and B). C will not happen unless A and B are both present. A and B cannot be faked. They must be genuine for C to occur. It is not some incantation or set of magic words. You can't just say the words and expect the result. There is more to it than that. Unless the Holy Spirit is actively involved (which is as He chooses), merely saying the words, or mumbling some 'sinner's prayer' will not result in Salvation.

Now, how about you retract your more egregious allegations, and take a deep breath (several of them), and let's discuss this rationally, instead of like we were having a paintball fight.

nobdysfool · Jun 23, 2014

I will be gone all day today (work), but I will look in when I get home later this evening

janxharris · Jun 23, 2014

nobdysfool said:
Are you done with your diatribe and accusations? How you could make some of them shows just how desperate you are to gain some sort of victory over Calvinists.

I never said that Paul did not preach verse 9 to unbelievers. That is your made-up false accusation. Show me where I ever made that statement. I am asking you to back up your assertions and accusation with more than just words.

No diatribe nbf.

Why question that he did with this then: 'Show us where Paul preached verse 9 to unbelievers'?

You seem to have this odd notion that the idea of particular atonement presents some sort of problem to preaching the gospel. What you are ignoring is that verse 9 can be preached to unbelievers, and unless the Holy Spirit specifically and deliberately opens their hearts (via regeneration) to hear and understand, they will reject it and therefore not believe and not be saved.

It does present a problem for Calvinists. As a Calvinist you will tell those whom you deem non-elect to believe in Christ's resurrection which God never intended for their justification. That is inappropriate.

We know you don't know who the non-elect are - so it is incumbent on the Calvinist to qualify his gospel. Trouble is, Paul doesn't.

The Atonement has nothing directly to do with that. You're trying to put a square peg in a round hole, and then getting upset with Calvinists when it doesn't fit and won't go in. In some circles, this would be classified as a 'Tempest in a Teapot'.

Paul tells us that Christ was raised up for our justification - that is part of the atonement. The unsaved are enjoined to believe in the resurrection.

Also, consider that verse 9 is in the form 'If A, and B, then C'. It is a statement of the certainty of what will happen (C), once the conditions are present (A and B). C will not happen unless A and B are both present. A and B cannot be faked. They must be genuine for C to occur. It is not some incantation or set of magic words. You can't just say the words and expect the result. There is more to it than that. Unless the Holy Spirit is actively involved (which is as He chooses), merely saying the words, or mumbling some 'sinner's prayer' will not result in Salvation.

Moses says it is, 'not too difficult or beyond your reach'; unconditional election says it will not happen.

I repeat - enjoining someone who might be non-elect (as per your view) to believe in that which is salvifically irrelevant is inappropriate...unless of course you speak candidly about election and limited atonement.

Paul did not.

Now, how about you retract your more egregious allegations, and take a deep breath (several of them), and let's discuss this rationally, instead of like we were having a paintball fight.

I apologise that I assumed.

nobdysfool · Jun 23, 2014

janxharris said:
No diatribe nbf.

9 posts in a row. Sure looked like a diatribe to me...

Why question that he did with this then: 'Show us where Paul preached verse 9 to unbelievers'?

You were the one trying to make a big deal out that. I just wanted you to back up the rhetoric. Doesn't look like you can.

It does present a problem for Calvinists. As a Calvinist you will tell those whom you deem non-elect to believe in Christ's resurrection which God never intended for their justification. That is inappropriate.

Inappropriate? For whom? The underlying assumption you hold here appears to be that the unsaved are neutral with regard to the Gospel, only needing information to make a decision about it. That is unbiblical in the extreme! Elsewhere you have admitted that no one will believe without the help of the Holy Spirit. You cannot have it both ways. Yet you seem to be trying to.

We know you don't know who the non-elect are - so it is incumbent on the Calvinist to qualify his gospel. Trouble is, Paul doesn't.

Oh, so now we need a disclaimer? What kind of nonsense is this???

Paul tells us that Christ was raised up for our justification - that is part of the atonement. The unsaved are enjoined to believe in the resurrection.

And unless the Holy Spirit opens their hearts and minds (via regeneration) they won't believe in the resurrection, or any of the rest of the Gospel, at least not in any salvific way. So what's yer problem?

Moses says it is, 'not too difficult or beyond your reach'; unconditional election says it will not happen.

Who was Moses talking to?

I repeat - enjoining someone who might be non-elect (as per your view) to believe in that which is salvifically irrelevant is inappropriate...unless of course you speak candidly about election and limited atonement.

Again with demanding that Calvinists provide a disclaimer...Horse-hockey! What do you mean by "salvifically irrelevant"? What part of the gospel is "salvifically irrelevant"???

Paul did not.

Nor would he have if you had tried to tell him this baloney! His reply might have been along the lines of "Get thee behind...."

I apologise that I assumed.

Accepted. Please refrain from doing so in the future. Not just for me but for all Calvinists.

janxharris · Jun 23, 2014

nobdysfool said:
You were the one trying to make a big deal out that. I just wanted you to back up the rhetoric. Doesn't look like you can.

If I can't, why haven't you addressed this:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7827988-27/#post65864768

If v.9 can be preached to unbelievers, why would you need proof that Paul did so? Paul wanted his kinsmen saved did he not? v.9 is what they must do and Paul preached in the synagogues right?

You rebuke me for posting too much on this and yet you still say I haven't succeeded in backing it up...

Inappropriate? For whom? The underlying assumption you hold here appears to be that the unsaved are neutral with regard to the Gospel, only needing information to make a decision about it. That is unbiblical in the extreme! Elsewhere you have admitted that no one will believe without the help of the Holy Spirit. You cannot have it both ways. Yet you seem to be trying to.

I wrote this:
It does present a problem for Calvinists. As a Calvinist you will tell those whom you deem non-elect to believe in Christ's resurrection which God never intended for their justification. That is inappropriate.

You didn't deal with it. I wasn't discussing total depravity or the need for the holy spirit.

Oh, so now we need a disclaimer? What kind of nonsense is this???

Saying it's nonsense without explaining why is not a rebuttal. Please try again.

You are enjoining belief in Christ's resurrection which is for 'our' justification (Romans 4:25) to those whom you say it was not intended for.

And unless the Holy Spirit opens their hearts and minds (via regeneration) they won't believe in the resurrection, or any of the rest of the Gospel, at least not in any salvific way. So what's yer problem?

This is the bit Paul NEVER said. Integrity says you must say it (when preaching) but Paul didn't - certainly not in the sense of unconditional election.

Paul quoted Moses who said it was, 'not too difficult or beyond your reach.'

Who was Moses talking to?

The letter is address to Roman Christians. Moses words were intended for Israelites. Paul was discussing Israelites.

Again with demanding that Calvinists provide a disclaimer...Horse-hockey!

Then some men you preach to are misled. That is a fact - v.9 will be, de facto, taken as an offer.

What do you mean by "salvifically irrelevant"? What part of the gospel is "salvifically irrelevant"???

If Christ did not die for a person then he did not resurrect unto justification for that person. For the individual concerned, it's salvifically irrelevant.

And yet you tell them to believe in the resurrection unto salvation. So did Paul.

Limited atonement cannot survive this anomaly.

Nor would he have if you had tried to tell him this baloney! His reply might have been along the lines of "Get thee behind...."

You haven't dealt with it yet.

nobdysfool · Jun 24, 2014

The so-called anomaly is a creation of your own mind, born out of some clear misunderstandings of Calvinist theology, and a desire to discredit that theology, because you don't like it.

So, according to what you've said, Calvinists, to be consistent, must provide a disclaimer when they preach the Gospel, or they have no integrity.

Paul never did,so according to that reasoning, Paul had no integrity.

The fact you refuse to face is that, like it or not, the Atonement is limited, for the simple reason that not all are saved. We can argue all day long about the 'why' of that, but at the end of the day, the fact remains, that not all are saved. That is not the fault of Calvinism, nor is it the fault of Arminianism.

Either God's Plan fell short of its intended goal, or it did not. Since I don't believe that either one of us would accept a failure on God's part, we are left with the fact that God's Plan has NOT failed, and His intention was, is, and shall be fulfilled in every way, down to the last soul. Why? Because an Atonement that doesn't ACTUALLY save those for whom it was intended, is powerless, and avails nothing. If you're comfortable with a God who only achieves only part of His intention, at least have the integrity to say so.

As for disclaimers, since Paul didn't use them, Calvinists will not, either. Who are you going to get to adjudicate against Calvinists for not using one? Accusations do not carry the force of fact. And it is incumbent on you to prove your allegation, not on us to disprove it.

FreeGrace2 · Jun 24, 2014

nobdysfool said:
The so-called anomaly is a creation of your own mind, born out of some clear misunderstandings of Calvinist theology, and a desire to discredit that theology, because you don't like it.

OK, let's be clear here. Is this Calvinist theology or not?
1. Christ died only for the elect.
2. God chose who would believe.
3. God regenerates the chosen so that they can believe.
4. The gospel promise is only for the elect.

I could go on and on, but, please inform whether these 4 points are part of Calvinist theology or not.

If one posts something that is a misunderstanding of a particular theology, it is incumbent upon someone from that view to correct the error. Instead, Calvinists seem to rather just make the claim that their view is misunderstood, with no correction of any point that had been made.

So, according to what you've said, Calvinists, to be consistent, must provide a disclaimer when they preach the Gospel, or they have no integrity.

Paul never did,so according to that reasoning, Paul had no integrity.

No, janx was demonstrating that Paul wasn't a Calvinist.

The fact you refuse to face is that, like it or not, the Atonement is limited, for the simple reason that not all are saved.

That reason doesn't prove LA in the slightest. Because Calvinism believes that Christ ONLY died for the elect would one think that reason proves LA.

The fact remains that there are no Scriptures that teach limited atonement, and in fact, many verses that very clearly STATE that Christ's death was for all, not just for some.

We can argue all day long about the 'why' of that, but at the end of the day, the fact remains, that not all are saved. That is not the fault of Calvinism, nor is it the fault of Arminianism.

The fault lies within each person. Some reject God's promise, others accept it. There is no inherent difference between those who believe and those who don't, even though Calvinists vainly try to demonstrate that there is.

janxharris · Jun 25, 2014

nobdysfool said:
I never said that Paul did not preach verse 9 to unbelievers. That is your made-up false accusation. Show me where I ever made that statement. I am asking you to back up your assertions and accusation with more than just words.

Did Paul preach v.9 to unbelievers? Are we to preach it as Paul called for in vv.14-15 or must we restrict ourselves to a particular form of words?

If you say Paul did preach v.9, please would you explain why you think so?

Does Romans 10 disprove particular atonement?

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur

The original! Accept no substitutes!

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

The original! Accept no substitutes!

The original! Accept no substitutes!

Veteran

The original! Accept no substitutes!

Veteran

The original! Accept no substitutes!

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Similar threads