Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And please, don't add to scripture.
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.
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.
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.
That didn't matter at all. The point remains. Ever consider that?And maybe I wasn't talking to you. Ever consider that?
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.
It's not a false charge. You add faith to 4:25
and beliefs that the resurrection is for everyone in 10:9.
There's no anomaly. I'll say again, anyone who believes will be saved.
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 absurdity here is the continual asserting that which just flat-out is not so.
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.
I don't think you have noticed the plain fact on the face of it. So I'll repeat it.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?
...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. 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.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.
1- Second person is clearly, obviously directed at the recipients of Paul's mail.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.
Where did Paul say, "Oh, go preach Romans 10:9. I did."Paul and others preached (and we are called to preach) v.9.
Nope. He asked how will people call on the Lord without a preacher. He did not state, "This is what to preach."False - Paul called for the preaching of the (this) gospel in vv. 14-15.
et tu.See previous. You are wrong.
Physically difficult, beyond physical reach.And yet faith is, as Moses put it, 'not too difficult or beyond your reach.'
Because Paul explicitly doesn't address this to them.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.'
And you make his grammar silly.You make Paul disingenuous.
And God lied under your theology. Christ must die looking forward to the REJECTION of the MANY (Heb 12:2).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.
"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?False - under your theology the ONLY bit that makes a difference is unconditional election.
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.You assume man is without God's influence. Revelation 3:20, John 12:32.
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.
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.
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."
Physically difficult, beyond physical reach.
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.
And God lied under your theology. Christ must die looking forward to the REJECTION of the MANY (Heb 12:2).
"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?
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?
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 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."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?