Does Romans 10 disprove particular atonement?

[A New Dawn]

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.

Anyone may believe, but only those who were given to Christ to save will believe.

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

That is your opinion. How did you come to that opinion?

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?

Everyone is resurrected. You seem to be equating resurrection with salvation. Christ died for the sins of the elect, but all will be resurrected to stand judgment. So how is it without relevance?

 

[janxharris]

Anyone may believe, but only those who were given to Christ to save will believe.

Not sure exactly what this means.

That is your opinion. How did you come to that opinion?

It's not taught in scripture.

Everyone is resurrected. You seem to be equating resurrection with salvation.

Sorry, I should have been clearer - I'll rewrite it:

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

Christ died for the sins of the elect, but all will be resurrected to stand judgement. So how is it without relevance?

Christ died for the sins of every man. That is what scripture teaches. There are no scriptures that explicitly state your opinion. John 1:29

The next day John saw Jesus coming towards him and said, 'Behold! The lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world!'

I hope we can stick with the OP. We are getting off track.

 

[Hammster]

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?

And the OP is adding to scripture to make a point. Not good form. And really lousy theology.

 

[janxharris]

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.

I have not added a condition. That Paul preached belief in the resurrection is proof in itself that it has relevance to all men - that He died for every man.

Not answering is not a good testament to your theology.

 

[janxharris]

And the OP is adding to scripture to make a point. Not good form. And really lousy theology.

No adding to scripture here. But what we do have is Calvinists preaching to the non-elect belief in an event that God did not intend for their benefit; for there can be no other conclusion - if Christ did not die for you then His resurrection is meaningless.

 

[A New Dawn]

Not sure exactly what this means.

It's a fairly straight-forward statement. Anyone may believe, but only those whom God gave to Christ to be saved will believe. (John 6)

It's not taught in scripture.

Then what (or who) determines who has ears to hear? You?

Sorry, I should have been clearer - I'll rewrite it:

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

I don't believe your clarification added anything, but I can say this, If Christ did not die for someone, then they really don't care about his death or resurrection. It is relevant for those it is relevant for.

Christ died for the sins of every man. That is what scripture teaches. There are no scriptures that explicitly state your opinion. John 1:29

The next day John saw Jesus coming towards him and said, 'Behold! The lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world!'

Sure there is. John 3:16 says exactly what I stated. God gave his only Son so that whosoever believes on him will not die but have everlasting life.

 

[janxharris]

It's a fairly straight-forward statement. Anyone may believe, but only those whom God gave to Christ to be saved will believe. (John 6)

Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.

Then what (or who) determines who has ears to hear? You?

Synergists believe both parties are involved.

I don't believe your clarification added anything, but I can say this, If Christ did not die for someone, then they really don't care about his death or resurrection. It is relevant for those it is relevant for.

That would suggest that God elected conditionally - elected and died for those that would be interested, with the converse for the rest - that's not Calvinism.

If those that Christ did not die for are predetermined to not care, why does Paul write Romans 10? His heart's desire is for the salvation of his kinsmen. He tells them their error (seeking to establish their own righteousness) and presents the solution (which, by quoting Moses, is not too difficult or beyond their reach). And then we get v.9 - believe in the resurrection for salvation.

Paul does not share your opinion.

Sure there is. John 3:16 says exactly what I stated. God gave his only Son so that whosoever believes on him will not die but have everlasting life.

vv.14-15 clarify v.16:
Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.

No Israelite that was bitten by a snake was excepted from the offer of life. Jesus' crucifixion is just as the analogy.
No man is without access to the providence of God's Son.

 

[A New Dawn]

Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.

Synergists believe both parties are involved.

Why? It doesn't say that. If having ears to hear was just dependent on wanting to have them, then everyone would have ears to hear. Because, let's face it, who'd rather burn in hell forever rather than sit on Christ's throne with him?

That would suggest that God elected conditionally - elected and died for those that would be interested, with the converse for the rest - that's not Calvinism.

What about that suggests that God elected conditionally? The ones that care care because they were elected. You seem to mix up the order of a lot of things.

If those that Christ did not die for are predetermined to not care, why does Paul write Romans 10? His heart's desire is for the salvation of his kinsmen. He tells them their error (seeking to establish their own righteousness) and presents the solution (which, by quoting Moses, is not too difficult or beyond their reach). And then we get v.9 - believe in the resurrection for salvation.

Paul does not share your opinion.

Romans was written to believers, remember?

vv.14-15 clarify v.16:
Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.

What part of "everyone who believes" is unclear? You say it yourself, but you don't seem to understand that the everyone who believes is the same set of people whom God gave to Christ to save.

Just as you suggest verses 14 and 15 clarify verse 16, so also does verse 18.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

They are already condemned. ALREADY! That doesn't leave much wiggle room for them try to come to belief. Sorry.

 

[Hammster]

No adding to scripture here. But what we do have is Calvinists preaching to the non-elect belief in an event that God did not intend for their benefit; for there can be no other conclusion - if Christ did not die for you then His resurrection is meaningless.

You have added the requirement that one must believe Christ was raised for them. Paul never even hints that non-believers must believe that.

 

[janxharris]

Why? It doesn't say that. If having ears to hear was just dependent on wanting to have them, then everyone would have ears to hear. Because, let's face it, who'd rather burn in hell forever rather than sit on Christ's throne with him?

Best to give a scripture - there are quite a few in that vein.

What about that suggests that God elected conditionally? The ones that care care because they were elected. You seem to mix up the order of a lot of things.

You haven't proven this.

Romans was written to believers, remember?

Paul and the Apostles preached this gospel to unbelievers. They preached belief in Christ's resurrection to men for whom the resurrection was not intended - Christ did not die for them, right (per your view)?

What part of "everyone who believes" is unclear? You say it yourself, but you don't seem to understand that the everyone who believes is the same set of people whom God gave to Christ to save.

I'm not following this. You will have to be a little more clear with your argument.

Just as you suggest verses 14 and 15 clarify verse 16,

Which you haven't refuted.

so also does verse 18.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

They are already condemned. ALREADY! That doesn't leave much wiggle room for them try to come to belief. Sorry.

Not sure you are making any point here. Sure God is omniscient.

 

[A New Dawn]

Not sure you are making any point here. Sure God is omniscient.

Or maybe God has elected some to salvation!

I am not sure why theologies need to be created to suggest why God didn't mean what He said in the scriptures. Y'all seem to have a problem with the way Calvinists view the word 'all', even though, Biblically, there are several different meanings for the word, but when someone quotes a verse that has a straightforward meaning, it is twisted all around to mean the exact opposite!

God sent Christ to save those who believe on him. Those who don't believe on Him are condemned already. I mean, really, it is such a simple idea that I can't believe that people actually have to argue with it.

 

[janxharris]

Or maybe God has elected some to salvation!

Yes, it's conditioned on belief.

I am not sure why theologies need to be created to suggest why God didn't mean what He said in the scriptures. Y'all seem to have a problem with the way Calvinists view the word 'all', even though, Biblically, there are several different meanings for the word, but when someone quotes a verse that has a straightforward meaning, it is twisted all around to mean the exact opposite!

Which scripture do you have in mind? No twisting in John 3.

God sent Christ to save those who believe on him. Those who don't believe on Him are condemned already. I mean, really, it is such a simple idea that I can't believe that people actually have to argue with it.

Of course, you fail to mention that it's God that predetermines who will and will not believe per your view. That is a shocking view of God and is not taught in scripture.

We are getting off the focus of the thread.

If Christ did not die for the non-elect, does His resurrection have relevance for them? If so what?

 

[janxharris]

You have added the requirement that one must believe Christ was raised for them. Paul never even hints that non-believers must believe that.

No I haven't.

The issue only arises because of the doctrine of limited atonement.

 

[janxharris]

Preaching belief in the resurrection of Christ to those for whom Christ did not actually die is an anomaly for which Calvinism has no answer.

 

[Hammster]

No I haven't.

The issue only arises because of the doctrine of limited atonement.

So believing that Christ was raised for you isn't a requirement? Them there's no issue.

 

[A New Dawn]

Of course, you fail to mention that it's God that predetermines who will and will not believe per your view. That is a shocking view of God and is not taught in scripture.

I haven't forgotten anything. Yes, God does determine who will and who will not believe. And it is not just "[my] view". It is the Bible's view, specifically John 6. God chooses those who will be saved and He gives them to Christ, who will lose none of them. How is that "my view"?

If Christ did not die for the non-elect, does His resurrection have relevance for them? If so what?

I have already answered. All will be resurrected to stand before the judgment bar of God. How is that not relevant??? Please answer, this is the second time I have responded to your question, and you ignored the first time I answered.

 

[janxharris]

So believing that Christ was raised for you isn't a requirement? Them there's no issue.

That's right, that is not a requirement.

Now please tell me what possible relevance Christ's resurrection has for those He did not die for?

 

[janxharris]

I haven't forgotten anything. Yes, God does determine who will and who will not believe. And it is not just "[my] view". It is the Bible's view, specifically John 6. God chooses those who will be saved and He gives them to Christ, who will lose none of them. How is that "my view"?

It saddens me that you think this about God. You are quite wrong.

Those given to Christ by the Father (v.37) are those that have listened and learned (v.44).

I have already answered. All will be resurrected to stand before the judgment bar of God. How is that not relevant??? Please answer, this is the second time I have responded to your question, and you ignored the first time I answered.

Of course, I meant relevant in the context of Romans 10 where Paul expounds on how salvation comes through belief in the resurrection of Christ. Paul is preaching a message of hope. where is yours?

So the relevance, according to you, is that the non-elect will be resurrected unto damnation?
Believe in Christ's resurrection and you won't be saved but resurrected to face damnation.

 

[Hammster]

That's right, that is not a requirement.

Now please tell me what possible relevance Christ's resurrection has for those He did not die for?

It's not relative to the text, so why discuss it here? Your OP has been disproven by your admission.

 

[A New Dawn]

It saddens me that you think this about God. You are quite wrong.

It saddens me that you claim it is not about God. It saddens me even more that you believe that it isn't all about God, that Christ was lying when he said "It is finished", that you feel the need to bring glory to yourself by needing to control things that are not your prerogative.

Of course, I meant relevant in the context of Romans 10 where Paul expounds on how salvation comes through belief in the resurrection of Christ. Paul is preaching a message of hope. where is yours?

So the relevance, according to you, is that the non-elect will be resurrected unto damnation?
Believe in Christ's resurrection and you won't be saved but resurrected to face damnation.

Oh, so you are changing the goalposts now. But you probably don't see that you are doing so.

But, to be fair, they don't need to believe in it for it to happen. Just like the verse that says that every knee will bow before Christ. It's just the reality of it all.