Does Romans 10 disprove particular atonement?

[janxharris]

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.

I didn't say it wasn't about God.
If it's all about God then you are proving that all events are foreordained which makes God's creation worthless.
Christ didn't lie.
No glory seeking here.

What does scripture say? "Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness."

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

No.

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.

If Christ did not die for you then His resurrection will not be for your benefit either. Or do you disagree?

If one reads Romans 10 through Calvinism's reading glasses - that Paul establishes election/reprobation in Roman 9 - that Paul thought as you do that God foreordained election/reprobation unconditionally - then what we read makes no sense. Heart's desire and prayer? Exposition of the remedy, the word of faith which is not too difficult or beyond reach (says Moses)? Belief in the resurrection for salvation? Paul considered that Christ DID NOT die for some men and yet they are enjoined to believe in a resurrection that cannot possibly benefit them in any way? Christ rose from the dead for individuals he did not die for?

 

[janxharris]

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

It obviously relates to the text - Jesus' death and resurrection are inextricably linked. If you make His death particular, if you say it was not for all, then it must affect the meaning of His resurrection. If Christ did not die for you, then His resurrection from that death relates exclusively to the elect.

Does Christ's resurrection under Calvinism's view have exactly the same meaning as under the Arminian view? Quite clearly, it does not.

To preach salvation through belief in Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead when that death was exclusively intended to save others is unacceptable.

 

[Hammster]

It obviously relates to the text - Jesus' death and resurrection are inextricably linked. If you make His death particular, if you say it was not for all, then it must affect the meaning of His resurrection. If Christ did not die for you, then His resurrection from that death relates exclusively to the elect.

Does Christ's resurrection under Calvinism's view have exactly the same meaning as under the Arminian view? Quite clearly, it does not.

To preach salvation through belief in Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead when that death was exclusively intended to save others is unacceptable.

Once again, what does Paul say? Any other meaning that you pour into it is eisegesis.

 

[janxharris]

Once again, what does Paul say? Any other meaning that you pour into it is eisegesis.

The Paul who is fully cognizant of limited atonement preaching reachable salvation to the unsaved through faith in the resurrection is incongruous. That is as plain as day.

The Paul for whom limited atonement was never a consideration preaching so is congruous.

LA is not taught in scripture. Romans 10 is proof that it is a false doctrine.

You're not dealing with irrationality of your position.

 

[A New Dawn]

I didn't say it wasn't about God.
If it's all about God then you are proving that all events are foreordained which makes God's creation worthless.
Christ didn't lie.
No glory seeking here

And yet you still insist that you need to make the decision. That is glory seeking, not glory giving.

As far as your comment about God ordaining future events making creation worthless, that is your own opinion, nothing more.

What does scripture say? "Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness."

What it doesn't say is why Abraham believed. You are basing your belief on silence. A bad thing to do.

No.

See below.

If Christ did not die for you then His resurrection will not be for your benefit either. Or do you disagree?

See, here is where you changed the goalposts. You initially asked if the resurrection was relevant for those who were not ordained to salvation. Now you change it to asking if it is beneficial for them. Those are two different questions, and I answered your question in the OP about why it is relevant.

If one reads Romans 10 through Calvinism's reading glasses - that Paul establishes election/reprobation in Roman 9 - that Paul thought as you do that God foreordained election/reprobation unconditionally - then what we read makes no sense. Heart's desire and prayer? Exposition of the remedy, the word of faith which is not too difficult or beyond reach (says Moses)? Belief in the resurrection for salvation? Paul considered that Christ DID NOT die for some men and yet they are enjoined to believe in a resurrection that cannot possibly benefit them in any way? Christ rose from the dead for individuals he did not die for?

First off, God did not foreordain reprobation unconditionally. That doesn't even make sense. Man chose to sin, condemning himself. God chooses to save some of them.

Secondly, knowing that not all will be saved does not lessen the love and concern and sorrow one has for friends, family, etc., that might/will not be saved. The gospel is preached to them in the hopes that they are among the elect.

Thirdly, as has been mentioned ad nauseum, God does not reveal who He has chosen to save, so the gospel is preached to all so that whoever has been chosen will hear.

 

[janxharris]

And yet you still insist that you need to make the decision. That is glory seeking, not glory giving.

Faith is not a work - Romans 9:30-32

As far as your comment about God ordaining future events making creation worthless, that is your own opinion, nothing more.

God is pleased that what He foreordained to occur, which could not not occur, occurs? That's illogical.

What it doesn't say is why Abraham believed. You are basing your belief on silence. A bad thing to do.

Hebrews 11 speaks of the commendation of such men of faith.

See, here is where you changed the goalposts. You initially asked if the resurrection was relevant for those who were not ordained to salvation. Now you change it to asking if it is beneficial for them. Those are two different questions, and I answered your question in the OP about why it is relevant.

The context is salvation - that s what Paul is preaching. I have not changed the goal-posts. I just wasn't explicit. sorry if that seemed confusing.

First off, God did not foreordain reprobation unconditionally. That doesn't even make sense. Man chose to sin, condemning himself. God chooses to save some of them.

You mean man could have done other than what you say God sovereignly predetermined?

You mean God chooses arbitrarily - if it's unconditional then it's Russian roulette.

Secondly, knowing that not all will be saved does not lessen the love and concern and sorrow one has for friends, family, etc., that might/will not be saved. The gospel is preached to them in the hopes that they are among the elect.

Speechless.

Thirdly, as has been mentioned ad nauseum, God does not reveal who He has chosen to save, so the gospel is preached to all so that whoever has been chosen will hear.

To preach salvation through belief in Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead when that death was exclusively intended to save others is unacceptable.

Unless you explain limited atonement from the off you will be misleading some of you audience when you preach the gospel. Perhaps you do (explain limited atonement).

 

[Hammster]

The Paul who is fully cognizant of limited atonement preaching reachable salvation to the unsaved through faith in the resurrection is incongruous. That is as plain as day.

The Paul for whom limited atonement was never a consideration preaching so is congruous.

LA is not taught in scripture. Romans 10 is proof that it is a false doctrine.

You're not dealing with irrationality of your position.

What Paul is aware of is not relevant to what Paul is teaching in Romans 10. He's very plain in his language. You are engaging in eisegesis, and you've admitted it when you said that one must not believe Christ rose for them to be saved.

 

[janxharris]

What Paul is aware of is not relevant to what Paul is teaching in Romans 10.

Paul forgets/doesn't bother to mention the elephant in the room?
You are not facing up to the absurdity that follows directly from your theology.

He's very plain in his language.

He is. He quashes any notion of a limited atonement.

You are engaging in eisegesis, and you've admitted it when you said that one must not believe Christ rose for them to be saved.

Okay, you are not dealing with the bigger picture - you are just quibbling that Paul's words survive the accusation of mendacity. The fact that they are grossly disningenuos under your theology seems to escape your notice.

 

[Hammster]

Paul forgets/doesn't bother to mention the elephant in the room?
You are not facing up to the absurdity that follows directly from your theology.

He does mention it? Where is that?

He is. He quashes any notion of a limited atonement.

The atonement isn't in view here. If it was, Paul would have said something.

Okay, you are not dealing with the bigger picture - you are just quibbling that Paul's words survive the accusation of mendacity. The fact that they are grossly disningenuos under your theology seems to escape your notice.

There's nothing disingenuous. If one confesses and believes, they will be saved.

 

[A New Dawn]

Faith is not a work - Romans 9:30-32

Yet when you make it a condition of something you must do, then it becomes a work.

God is pleased that what He foreordained to occur, which could not not occur, occurs? That's illogical.

How does forordaining specific events make creation worthless? Please try not to use opinion. You have this belief so you should be able to support it from something that was said in the Bible.

Hebrews 11 speaks of the commendation of such men of faith.

I am not seeing the condemnation of anyone having faith in Hebrews 11. Perhaps you could quote the specific verse, since I am not a mind-reader. Thanks.

The context is salvation - that s what Paul is preaching. I have not changed the goal-posts. I just wasn't explicit. sorry if that seemed confusing.

Thanks for clarifying. I guess we understand what is "relevant" in different ways.

You mean man could have done other than what you say God sovereignly predetermined?

No, but God knowing the choice that men would make doesn't mean that he manipulated it.

You mean God chooses arbitrarily - if it's unconditional then it's Russian roulette.

I guess you could consider it that way if you don't trust God.

Speechless.

You are speechless that Calvinists don't know everything and hope that their loved ones are part of the elect? I have no idea what you are "speechless" about. Do you not hope that your loved ones come to know Christ? Or do you just not care?

To preach salvation through belief in Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead when that death was exclusively intended to save others is unacceptable.

Unless you explain limited atonement from the off you will be misleading some of you audience when you preach the gospel. Perhaps you do (explain limited atonement).

You seem to think that there is an axiom that suggests that everyone has to be equally able to accept the gospel. What the Bible says is that God's word will not return void.

Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I [God] please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

This says that God will accomplish with HIS word that which HE pleases. It says nothing about what you think should or shouldn't be.

 

[janxharris]

He does mention it? Where is that?

He doesn't mention it because there is no such doctrine.

The atonement isn't in view here. If it was, Paul would have said something.

The righteousness of God is through the atonement. It's in vv.3-4.

There's nothing disingenuous. If one confesses and believes, they will be saved.

You cannot deny that Paul's preaching was misleading under your theology.

 

[janxharris]

Yet when you make it a condition of something you must do, then it becomes a work.

No, Paul is quite clear on this:

Romans 10:3-9
Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.” But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

How does foreordaining specific events make creation worthless? Please try not to use opinion. You have this belief so you should be able to support it from something that was said in the Bible.

Glorified software programme. Can't you see it's a shame A New Dawn?

I am not seeing the condemnation of anyone having faith in Hebrews 11. Perhaps you could quote the specific verse, since I am not a mind-reader. Thanks.

Commendation, not condemnation - v.39 (Heb. 11).

No, but God knowing the choice that men would make doesn't mean that he manipulated it.

You've slipped into the Arminian view there. That's not such a bad thing.
No, Calvinism is not foreknowledge of what man will do, but a foreordaining.

You are speechless that Calvinists don't know everything and hope that their loved ones are part of the elect? I have no idea what you are "speechless" about. Do you not hope that your loved ones come to know Christ? Or do you just not care?

I care, yes. Speechless that you believe that God elects unconditionally in this way. Speechless that you preach salvation to the non-elect through belief in Christ's resurrection from the dead when that sacrificial death was exclusively intended for others.

You seem to think that there is an axiom that suggests that everyone has to be equally able to accept the gospel. What the Bible says is that God's word will not return void.

Yes and yes.

Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I [God] please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

This says that God will accomplish with HIS word that which HE pleases. It says nothing about what you think should or shouldn't be.

God cannot lie, He is righteous and just. Arbitrary election is repugnant and impugns God's good name.

 

[Hammster]

He doesn't mention it because there is no such doctrine.



The righteousness of God is through the atonement. It's in vv.3-4.



You cannot deny that Paul's preaching was misleading under your theology.

I affirm that you've shown nothing from the text that supports your view. You admit that Paul doesn't say what you need him to say. And there's nothing about the atonement in view. You have a whole bunch of nothing.

What you really need to do is find texts that talk about the atonement and make an argument for what you believe. Then you won't have to contrive an argument.

 

[janxharris]

I affirm that you've shown nothing from the text that supports your view. You admit that Paul doesn't say what you need him to say. And there's nothing about the atonement in view. You have a whole bunch of nothing.

Quite clearly you are comfortable preaching salvation through belief in the resurrection to the non-elect that actually has zero relevance for them regarding salvation. Christ didn't die for them, but that doesn't stop you giving a false hope.

That the word 'atonement' is not mentioned is irrelevant. It's a red herring.

What you really need to do is find texts that talk about the atonement and make an argument for what you believe. Then you won't have to contrive an argument.

The contradiction in the Calvinist's position is incontrovertible. What you won't do is deal with the dinosaur in the room.

 

[janxharris]

Paul says in v.3, 'they did not submit to God’s righteousness.' Submitting to God's righteousness entails confessing, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believing in one's heart that 'God raised Him from the dead.' We know that our righteousness comes through the atonement:

2 Corinthians 5:21
God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

The resurrection and atoning death of Christ are inextricably linked. Making an argument based on the non-utterance of 'atonement' is fruitless.

Paul clearly and explicitly puts salvation within the reach of every man in quoting Moses, so the doctrine of limited atonement is summarily and tacitly dismissed. That he preached belief in the resurrection is fatal to the doctrine.

Christ's death and resurrection cannot be uncoupled.

 

[A New Dawn]

No, Paul is quite clear on this:

Romans 10:3-9
Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.” But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

I understand what Paul is clear about. It seems you don't. Ephesians states that faith and works are gifts that God gives us at the time of regeneration. We do not perform these on our own, without acceptance of them from God, so that they cannot be considered works of salvation. Whether from "the law" (of Moses) or something you create on your own, if you have to do it in order to be saved, it is considered a work. Christ said "It is finished". There is absolutely nothing else you need to do in order to be saved. It all rests on God. You can't add anything, or else you are making it a work. Maybe one day you will finally understand this.

Commendation, not condemnation - v.39 (Heb. 11).

Ah. Sorry, I misread that.

What does Hebrew's commendation of men of faith have to do with why Abraham believed?

You've slipped into the Arminian view there. That's not such a bad thing.
No, Calvinism is not foreknowledge of what man will do, but a foreordaining.

So, once again, the fact that you do not understand Calvinism shows.

While I do believe that God does step in and take an active part in our lives, I do not believe, nor do I believe Calvinism teaches, that all things are controlled by God. As was stated earlier, much of what we do comes about by our natural choice to obey God's will rather than God forcing us to do things. You honestly have no idea what it means to have our will aligned with God's, do you?

I care, yes. Speechless that you believe that God elects unconditionally in this way. Speechless that you preach salvation to the non-elect through belief in Christ's resurrection from the dead when that sacrificial death was exclusively intended for others.

Somehow, I really doubt that you are speechless. People who are speechless usually don't have much to say.

Yes and yes.

So show me this Biblical axiom that suggests that everyone has to have an equal chance of receiving the gospel. If I were you, I'd get right on an airplane and fly to China so you can start preaching the gospel there so all really do have a chance to hear it, otherwise your comments don't ring true.

God cannot lie, He is righteous and just.

God cannot lie, and He is righteous and just. I agree, however, I think that you are trying to force God into a janxharris mold. You want God to agree with you about what is righteous and just instead of listening to what HE has to say about it.

Arbitrary election is repugnant and impugns God's good name.

Thanks for your opinion.

 

[janxharris]

I understand what Paul is clear about. It seems you don't. Ephesians states that faith and works are gifts that God gives us at the time of regeneration. We do not perform these on our own, without acceptance of them from God, so that they cannot be considered works of salvation. Whether from "the law" (of Moses) or something you create on your own, if you have to do it in order to be saved, it is considered a work. Christ said "It is finished". There is absolutely nothing else you need to do in order to be saved. It all rests on God. You can't add anything, or else you are making it a work. Maybe one day you will finally understand this.

Scripture is emphatic on this - faith and work are separate. Putting one's faith in Christ does not constitute a work f righteousness else Paul could not have written Romans 9:30-32.

Faith is never a choice made by a man acting alone.

Ah. Sorry, I misread that.

What does Hebrew's commendation of men of faith have to do with why Abraham believed?

You have asserted that it's God that gifts one faith (through regeneration) - so one will have faith if God elected you. Why would a man be commended for such a predetermined outcome?

So, once again, the fact that you do not understand Calvinism shows.

While I do believe that God does step in and take an active part in our lives, I do not believe, nor do I believe Calvinism teaches, that all things are controlled by God. As was stated earlier, much of what we do comes about by our natural choice to obey God's will rather than God forcing us to do things. You honestly have no idea what it means to have our will aligned with God's, do you?

You:
First off, God did not foreordain reprobation unconditionally. That doesn't even make sense. Man chose to sin, condemning himself. God chooses to save some of them.

Me:
You mean man could have done other than what you say God sovereignly predetermined?

You:
No, but God knowing the choice that men would make doesn't mean that he manipulated it.

Correct me if I am wrong but there is a contradiction there. Essentially, you say: Man chose to sin so God holds him accountable for it but, no, he could not have done other than what God predetermined.

Somehow, I really doubt that you are speechless. People who are speechless usually don't have much to say.

Touche.

So show me this Biblical axiom that suggests that everyone has to have an equal chance of receiving the gospel. If I were you, I'd get right on an airplane and fly to China so you can start preaching the gospel there so all really do have a chance to hear it, otherwise your comments don't ring true.

I have already shown you - Romans 10.

 

[janxharris]

Romans 4:25
He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

Paul says that Christ was raised to life for our justification. If by 'our' he meant the elect, that is, those for whom Christ died, what business has he preaching salvation through belief in the resurrection to the non-elect? They are to believe in the resurrection by which Christ brought justification exclusively to others, in order that they (the non-elect) will be saved?

This is an anomaly which is only resolved by rejecting limited atonement which is never explicitly taught in scripture.
Christ died for all and scripture says so explicitly (Hebrews 2:9). If he died for then His resurrection was for all. Paul's gospel in Romans 10:9 only makes sense if this is the case.

.

 

[Hammster]

Quite clearly you are comfortable preaching salvation through belief in the resurrection to the non-elect that actually has zero relevance for them regarding salvation. Christ didn't die for them, but that doesn't stop you giving a false hope.

One, I don't know who the non-elect are. Two, the command is equally as valid for them than it is the elect. So your emotional argument fails.

That the word 'atonement' is not mentioned is irrelevant. It's a red herring.

True, in as far as it goes. What is relevant is that Paul isn't even discussing the atonement here.

The contradiction in the Calvinist's position is incontrovertible. What you won't do is deal with the dinosaur in the room.

Like I said, find some texts that actually discuss the atonement and make a positive argument for your view. If you can't do that, then this looks even more contrived than it is.

 

[Hammster]

Romans 4:25
He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

Paul says that Christ was raised to life for our justification. If by 'our' he meant the elect, that is, those for whom Christ died, what business has he preaching salvation through belief in the resurrection to the non-elect? They are to believe in the resurrection by which Christ brought justification exclusively to others, in order that they (the non-elect) will be saved?

This is an anomaly which is only resolved by rejecting limited atonement which is never explicitly taught in scripture.
Christ died for all and scripture says so explicitly (Hebrews 2:9). If he died for then His resurrection was for all. Paul's gospel in Romans 10:9 only makes sense if this is the case.

.

So just ignore the language Paul uses and assume your unsupported position is correct. Got it.

And particular redemption is taught throughout scripture, starting in Genesis.