Does Romans 10 disprove particular atonement?

[janxharris]

Romans 10:8b-9 & 14-15 (KJV - my emphasis in black bold)
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.

How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!”
______________

In view of the fact that Paul preaches (and we are to preach) belief in Christ's resurrection, I ask:

For whom did Christ rise from the dead for? If He did not die for you, then He didn't rise for you, surely? Does His resurrection have any relevance at all for the non-elect? If so, what?

For the Calvinist preacher there is an anomaly here, for he preaches belief in the resurrection to the non-elect for whom (apparently) Christ did not die.
.

 

[janxharris]

This thread developed from:
Paul considered that Christ's resurrection was of universal salvific benefit (1 & 2)
http://www.christianforums.com/t7815914/
http://www.christianforums.com/t7827193/

 

[Hammster]

Romans 10:8b-9 & 14-15 (KJV - my emphasis in black bold)
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.

How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!”
______________

In view of the fact that Paul preaches (and we are to preach) belief in Christ's resurrection, I ask:

For whom did Christ rise from the dead for? If He did not die for you, then He didn't rise for you, surely? Does His resurrection have any relevance at all for the non-elect? If so, what?

For the Calvinist preacher there is an anomaly here, for he preaches belief in the resurrection to the non-elect for whom (apparently) Christ did not die.
.

No anomaly. Paul said that to be saved, one must believe that Christ is Lord, and that God raised Him from the dead. He gives nothing else in Romans 10.

 

[janxharris]

No anomaly. Paul said that to be saved, one must believe that Christ is Lord, and that God raised Him from the dead. He gives nothing else in Romans 10.

Paul preached belief in Christ's resurrection that God predetermined would have no benefit whatsoever for the the non-elect?

How could there be a worse case of the incongruous than this? Believe that what took place which was not intended for your benefit and you'll be saved?

You didn't answer the questions in the OP.

 

[Hammster]

Paul preached belief in Christ's resurrection that God predetermined would have no benefit whatsoever for the the non-elect.

How could there be a worse case of the incongruous than this? Believe that what took place which was not intended for your benefit and you'll be saved?

You didn't answer the questions in the OP.

The questions in the OP are contrived to create a problem where none exist.

 

[janxharris]

The questions in the OP are contrived to create a problem where none exist.

Hammster, with respect, one can answer the question irrespective of the OP. But it's not surprising that you won't answer it - for, indeed, I don't see how any Calvinist could answer it without contradicting their theology.

 

[janxharris]

The questions in the OP are contrived to create a problem where none exist.

There is no contrivance here:

For whom did Christ rise from the dead for? If He did not die for you, then He didn't rise for you, surely? Does His resurrection have any relevance at all for the non-elect? If so, what?

The questions arise becomes some say Christ did not die for some men - your very theology brings it up.

 

[nobdysfool]

Hammster, with respect, one can answer the question irrespective of the OP. But it's not surprising that you won't answer it - for, indeed, I don't see how any Calvinist could answer it without contradicting their theology.

And that's been the goal all along, to trap Calvinists. Isn't it?

There are several issues at play here, not the least of which is this false idea that Calvinists cannot be consistent in preaching the Gospel. The answer to that is simple: We don't know who the elect are, so we preach to all, so that the elect will hear and be saved.

But that's not good enough, apparently, because the hue and cry goes up that in doing so, Calvinists are essentially lying to people. However, it has apparently escaped the notice of some that they assume that Calvinists preach the Gospel in the same "it's for everybody without exception" style that the non-Calvinists do. Calvinists don't preach it that way, because to do so would be inconsistent with what we believe. Thus, there is no inconsistency on the Calvinist side, but extreme inconsistency on the non-Calvinist side, because of the straw man erected and passed off as 'Calvinism', and accusations based on false premises, because of lack of real accurate knowledge of what Calvinists believe and teach. Knowledge which, when asked for, is 'shouted down' almost as soon as posted.

Overall there is an air of almost desperate, repeated attempts to destroy Calvinism by the non-Calvinists, it practically reaches the level of obsession. They just can't let it alone. And what can't be won on actual points of doctrine, are instead turned into emotional arguments, insults, and flaming, to remove the Calvinists by means of the forum rules. This will be vehemently denied, but the evidence speaks for itself.

 

[janxharris]

And that's been the goal all along, to trap Calvinists. Isn't it?

I merely point out a contradiction that arises from such theology.

There are several issues at play here, not the least of which is this false idea that Calvinists cannot be consistent in preaching the Gospel. The answer to that is simple: We don't know who the elect are, so we preach to all, so that the elect will hear and be saved.

The OP suggests you preach belief in a resurrection that has no relevance for the non-elect. Of course, if your gospel was always accompanied with a proviso (Christ did not die for all - so his resurrection has no relevance for them) then there would be no need for the OP. The trouble is is that this is not what Calvinist do as a matter of course unless, 'it comes up.' And it's not part of Paul's gospel...so he was no proto-Calvinist.

But that's not good enough, apparently, because the hue and cry goes up that in doing so, Calvinists are essentially lying to people. However, it has apparently escaped the notice of some that they assume that Calvinists preach the Gospel in the same "it's for everybody without exception" style that the non-Calvinists do. Calvinists don't preach it that way, because to do so would be inconsistent with what we believe.

That's different gospel from that which Paul preached. What does your gospel include so as to preclude the assumption that, "it's for everybody without exception"?

Thus, there is no inconsistency on the Calvinist side, but extreme inconsistency on the non-Calvinist side, because of the straw man erected and passed off as 'Calvinism', and accusations based on false premises, because of lack of real accurate knowledge of what Calvinists believe and teach. Knowledge which, when asked for, is 'shouted down' almost as soon as posted.

Where is the straw man / false premise in the OP?

Overall there is an air of almost desperate, repeated attempts to destroy Calvinism by the non-Calvinists, it practically reaches the level of obsession. They just can't let it alone. And what can't be won on actual points of doctrine, are instead turned into emotional arguments, insults, and flaming, to remove the Calvinists by means of the forum rules. This will be vehemently denied, but the evidence speaks for itself.

This is a debating forum. We are debating.

 

[janxharris]

And that's been the goal all along, to trap Calvinists. Isn't it?

There are several issues at play here, not the least of which is this false idea that Calvinists cannot be consistent in preaching the Gospel. The answer to that is simple: We don't know who the elect are, so we preach to all, so that the elect will hear and be saved.

But that's not good enough, apparently, because the hue and cry goes up that in doing so, Calvinists are essentially lying to people. However, it has apparently escaped the notice of some that they assume that Calvinists preach the Gospel in the same "it's for everybody without exception" style that the non-Calvinists do. Calvinists don't preach it that way, because to do so would be inconsistent with what we believe. Thus, there is no inconsistency on the Calvinist side, but extreme inconsistency on the non-Calvinist side, because of the straw man erected and passed off as 'Calvinism', and accusations based on false premises, because of lack of real accurate knowledge of what Calvinists believe and teach. Knowledge which, when asked for, is 'shouted down' almost as soon as posted.

Overall there is an air of almost desperate, repeated attempts to destroy Calvinism by the non-Calvinists, it practically reaches the level of obsession. They just can't let it alone. And what can't be won on actual points of doctrine, are instead turned into emotional arguments, insults, and flaming, to remove the Calvinists by means of the forum rules. This will be vehemently denied, but the evidence speaks for itself.

Is the poster going to engage with the OP?

 

[Hammster]

There is no contrivance here:

For whom did Christ rise from the dead for? If He did not die for you, then He didn't rise for you, surely? Does His resurrection have any relevance at all for the non-elect? If so, what?

The questions arise becomes some say Christ did not die for some men - your very theology brings it up.

Where it's contrived is where Paul doesn't say that one must believe that Christ rose for them. He just doesn't say it.

 

[janxharris]

Where it's contrived is where Paul doesn't say that one must believe that Christ rose for them. He just doesn't say it.

Right, Paul preaches belief in the resurrection. That is an established fact we agree on. However, since it is Calvinism's very own theology of particular atonement, which is not explicit in scripture, that necessitates the question, then I ask:

For the non-elect - for those for whom YOU say Christ did not die, how does Christ's resurrection have any relevance at all? If it has has no relevance, why would anyone, let alone a preacher, enjoin belief in it? If it has relevance, then what becomes of particular atonement?

 

[Hammster]

Right, Paul preaches belief in the resurrection. That is an established fact we agree on. However, since it is Calvinism's very own theology of particular atonement, which is not explicit in scripture, that necessitates the question, then I ask:

For the non-elect - for those for whom YOU say Christ did not die, how does Christ's resurrection have any relevance at all? If it has has no relevance, why would anyone, let alone a preacher, enjoin belief in it? If it has relevance, then what becomes of particular atonement?

You are mixing ideas. Not everything is atonement/election/justification/etc.

 

[janxharris]

You are mixing ideas. Not everything is atonement/election/justification/etc.

Nothing you have said here justifies not answering the question. It's not even an argument.

I think you mean mixing ideas that should not be mixed. How does that apply to what I asked?

For the non-elect - for those for whom YOU say Christ did not die, how does Christ's resurrection have any relevance at all?

Either it has relevance or it does not. Which is it?

 

[janxharris]

Paul's heart-felt remedy for unsaved Israelites who erred because they sought to establish their own righteousness was to preach salvation through belief in the resurrection. Paul even quotes Moses to the effect that it, 'is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach.'

Apparently, though, the reality is that Jesus did not die for some of those very Israelites that Paul speaks of and so, therefore, his resurrection has no relevance to them whatsoever. It seems that Paul's solution, after all, was just empty words. The only thing that really matters is if Christ died, unconditionally, for you.

Only by throwing out limited atonement can this contradiction be resolved.

 

[Hammster]

Nothing you have said here justifies not answering the question. It's not even an argument.

I think you mean mixing ideas that should not be mixed. How does that apply to what I asked?

For the non-elect - for those for whom YOU say Christ did not die, how does Christ's resurrection have any relevance at all?

Either it has relevance or it does not. Which is it?

If we are still discussing Romans 10, the relevance is that if the non-elect confesses Christ as Lord and believes God raised Him from the dead, he'll be saved. Paul puts no other conditions. You are the one who is adding a condition (belief that Christ rose for you).

 

[janxharris]

If we are still discussing Romans 10, the relevance is that if the non-elect confesses Christ as Lord and believes God raised Him from the dead, he'll be saved. Paul puts no other conditions. You are the one who is adding a condition (belief that Christ rose for you).

You avoided my question again. I am not adding a condition. I am pointing out an anomaly that stems from your theology:

Christ did not die for the non-elect so His resurrection has no relevance for them. To preach belief in such an event, the benefits from which they are unconditionally excluded, is outlandish. Furthermore, it portrays Paul as someone without integrity. So much for him quoting Moses.

You think that Paul was fully cognisant of particular atonement, and yet he proceeds to quash any such notion by writing Romans 10.

Without addressing the issue I have posed to you, then particular atonement remains demonstrably untenable. It is no surprise that the doctrine is nowhere explicitly written in scripture.

 

[Hammster]

You avoided my question again. I am not adding a condition. I am pointing out an anomaly that stems from your theology:

Christ did not die for the non-elect so His resurrection has no relevance for them. To preach belief in such an event, the benefits from which they are unconditionally excluded, is outlandish. Furthermore, it portrays Paul as someone without integrity. So much for him quoting Moses.

You think that Paul was fully cognisant of particular atonement, and yet he proceeds to quash any such notion by writing Romans 10.

Without addressing the issue I have posed to you, then particular atonement remains demonstrably untenable. It is no surprise that the doctrine is nowhere explicitly written in scripture.

You are adding a condition. That's why I'm not addressing your contrived issue, but instead pointing out where you are adding to Paul's instruction.

And particular redemption is explicit. And implicit. But you have to let go of your tradition to see it, and change your view of God.

 

[A New Dawn]

In view of the fact that Paul preaches (and we are to preach) belief in Christ's resurrection, I ask:

For whom did Christ rise from the dead for? If He did not die for you, then He didn't rise for you, surely? Does His resurrection have any relevance at all for the non-elect? If so, what?

For the Calvinist preacher there is an anomaly here, for he preaches belief in the resurrection to the non-elect for whom (apparently) Christ did not die.
.

Jesus said that God the Father sent his only Son to save whoever believes on him. Then He told the apostles to go into the world teaching them to observe all things whatsoever He has commanded them. So you are suggesting that Jesus didn't know his own doctrine? That Jesus was wrong in suggesting that He was only sent for those who believed on him? Or that He was wrong in tell us to preach the gospel to all? He himself gave parables to all that He know would only be heard by those who had ears to hear. Was He wrong, too?

 

[janxharris]

Jesus said that God the Father sent his only Son to save whoever believes on him. Then He told the apostles to go into the world teaching them to observe all things whatsoever He has commanded them. So you are suggesting that Jesus didn't know his own doctrine? That Jesus was wrong in suggesting that He was only sent for those who believed on him? Or that He was wrong in tell us to preach the gospel to all?

Jesus was sent for all mankind. John 1:9, 3:16. Anyone may believe.
Yes, Jesus commissioned the preaching of the Gospel to all creation.

He himself gave parables to all that He know would only be heard by those who had ears to hear. Was He wrong, too?

? Yes, but not because God predetermined that they would not have ears.
_______________________



The OP shows that the Calvinist's doctrine of particular atonement is untenable because Paul preached belief in the resurrection - if Christ did not die for you then his resurrection is without relevance. Do you agree?