Does Romans 10 disprove particular atonement?

[janxharris]

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.

If you preach v.9 to the unsaved then you are enjoining some to believe in that which was never intended for them (by your theology). Nothing you have said refutes the charge. Paul clearly put's something before the unsaved that, as Moses says, 'is not too difficult or beyond your reach.'

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.

FG2 has said it - Paul was no 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. 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.

We agree.

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.

God did not fail - if you know omnisciently then 'failure' isn't a consideration.

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.

No disclaimer then no unconditional election. Romans 10 becomes quite ridiculous if for all Paul's heart's desire and explanation of error and remedy he says NOTHING about UE.

Why quote Moses?

 

[A New Dawn]

My mother just asked me - she's not a believer. No concoction.

Your mother just asked you what?

 

[janxharris]

Your mother just asked you what?

Why, if Christ did not die for all, Paul enjoins all to believe in the resurrection?

 

[janxharris]

Your mother just asked you what?

Did Paul preach Romans 10:9 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?

 

[A New Dawn]

Why, if Christ did not die for all, Paul enjoins all to believe in the resurrection?

So, out of the blue, your mother, a non-believer, happens to know what Paul said in Romans and asked you about it?

 

[janxharris]

So, out of the blue, your mother, a non-believer, happens to know what Paul said in Romans and asked you about it?

No.

 

[A New Dawn]

No.

So, what were the circumstances? You offered it as proof of your position, now you have to explain it before we can discuss it.

 

[janxharris]

So, what were the circumstances? You offered it as proof of your position, now you have to explain it before we can discuss it.

I simply told her that Paul preached v.9 to the unsaved - and explained unconditional election, limited atonement and Romans 10 in general.

Not sure why you are focusing on this. Of course folk would be intrigued by what we have been discussing here. Why would you suggest that the unsaved would not be interested?

 

[A New Dawn]

I simply told her that Paul preached v.9 to the unsaved - and explained unconditional election, limited atonement and Romans 10 in general.

Not sure why you are focusing on this. Of course folk would be intrigued by what we have been discussing here. Why would you suggest that the unsaved would not be interested?

You stated that unsaved people want to know all about this, and I contended that I doubt the veracity off that statement to which you replied that your mother, a non-believer, wanted to know. And I wanted to know the circumstances of her desire to know. So now I know that she was not interested because she had the initial desire to know, she wanted to know because you told her about the discussion. There is a difference between wanting to know because you have a true desire to know, or wanting to know because someone else tells you that there is this discussion happening that talks about something you believe to be wrong. Of course she is going to ask when you tell her that from your POV. I could probably show that chapter to any non-believing friend of mine and ask them what they think about it, and they'd probably say "What is there to think about it?".

IOW, you led her into wanting to know about it. She had no interest till you brought it up and told her about it, right?

 

[janxharris]

You stated that unsaved people want to know all about this, and I contended that I doubt the veracity off that statement to which you replied that your mother, a non-believer, wanted to know. And I wanted to know the circumstances of her desire to know. So now I know that she was not interested because she had the initial desire to know, she wanted to know because you told her about the discussion. There is a difference between wanting to know because you have a true desire to know, or wanting to know because someone else tells you that there is this discussion happening that talks about something you believe to be wrong. Of course she is going to ask when you tell her that from your POV. I could probably show that chapter to any non-believing friend of mine and ask them what they think about it, and they'd probably say "What is there to think about it?".

IOW, you led her into wanting to know about it. She had no interest till you brought it up and told her about it, right?

That one unsaved person wants to know is enough. Of course, without an explanation of the issues, no question would have been asked.

Did Paul preach Romans 10:9 to unbelievers?

 

[A New Dawn]

That one unsaved person wants to know is enough. Of course, without an explanation of the issues, no question would have been asked.

Did Paul preach Romans 10:9 to unbelievers?

But she doesn't want to know for her benefit, she is curious because you told her she should be curious. And as soon as the discussion is over, I am sure her curiosity will disappear. IOW, you are what she is interested in, not Romans 10:9.

 

[janxharris]

But she doesn't want to know for her benefit, she is curious because you told her she should be curious. And as soon as the discussion is over, I am sure her curiosity will disappear. IOW, you are what she is interested in, not Romans 10:9.

Speculation.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[A New Dawn]

Speculation.

You didn't answer my question.

I don't think you have proved your point. My response might be speculation, but it it speculation based on real life experience. When your mother voluntarily comes to you to initiate a discussion on a topic that we are not discussing here, and that you have not already delineated your opinion on (to her), then we can discuss whether your point has merit.

 

[janxharris]

I don't think you have proved your point. My response might be speculation, but it it speculation based on real life experience. When your mother voluntarily comes to you to initiate a discussion on a topic that we are not discussing here, and that you have not already delineated your opinion on (to her), then we can discuss whether your point has merit.

She wanted to know. You said she didn't:

Unbelievers don't want to know anything of the sort! That is a concoction of your own making.

You didn't answer my question: Did Paul preach Romans 10:9 to unbelievers?

 

[OzSpen]

She wanted to know. You said she didn't:

Unbelievers don't want to know anything of the sort! That is a concoction of your own making.

You didn't answer my question: Did Paul preach Romans 10:9 to unbelievers?

Romans 10:9 sounds awfully like Acts 16:30-31,

Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household" (ESV)

Paul didn't say, 'Be regenerated first and then you can have faith'. He said, '[You] believe', i.e. have faith.

Of course Paul would say to unbelievers what he wrote in Rom 10:9 because that is parallel to what he said to the Philippian jailer, recorded in Acts 16.

Oz

 

[Hammster]

Romans 10:9 sounds awfully like Acts 16:30-31,

Paul didn't say, 'Be regenerated first and then you can have faith'. He said, '[You] believe', i.e. have faith.

Of course Paul would say to unbelievers what he wrote in Rom 10:9 because that is parallel to what he said to the Philippian jailer, recorded in Acts 16.

Oz

There's never a command to be regenerated. I thought you were familiar with Calvinism.

 

[OzSpen]

There's never a command to be regenerated. I thought you were familiar with Calvinism.

So do you or don't you believe the Calvinistic teaching that regeneration precedes faith????

 

[Hammster]

So do you or don't you believe the Calvinistic teaching that regeneration precedes faith????

Red herring. Please address my comment. Otherwise it looks like deflection. We cannot have a reasonable discussion if you deflect.

 

[EmSw]

Red herring. Please address my comment. Otherwise it looks like deflection. We cannot have a reasonable discussion if you deflect.

Oz said -
"Paul didn't say, 'Be regenerated first and then you can have faith'. He said, '[You] believe', i.e. have faith."

To which you replied -
"There's never a command to be regenerated. I thought you were familiar with Calvinism."

What comment needs to be addressed? Oz never said the Bible commands us to be regenerated. What is he deflecting? You are the one deflecting.

 

[Hammster]

Oz said -
"Paul didn't say, 'Be regenerated first and then you can have faith'. He said, '[You] believe', i.e. have faith."

To which you replied -
"There's never a command to be regenerated. I thought you were familiar with Calvinism."

What comment needs to be addressed? Oz never said the Bible commands us to be regenerated. What is he deflecting? You are the one deflecting.

Thanks for you (incorrect) opinion.