Does Romans 10 disprove particular atonement?

[A New Dawn]

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.

It does if you have to summon up the faith and make the decision. If you have done that, then you have made it a work.

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?

The reason they are commended is because they were looking forward to a messiah based purely off a promise. It is much harder to maintain faith in those situations. We look backward to a Messiah who has already done the work for us, and so we can better maintain our faith. It isn't as much the maintaining the faith as it is keeping the hope alive.

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.

Touche.

Yes, just like the men who killed Jesus. They fulfilled God's plan but were still held accountable.

I have already shown you - Romans 10.

I see you expect me to be a mind reader again.

 

[A New Dawn]

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.

.

Since Paul was talking to believers, then, yes, it can be assumed that "our" is in reference to the elect.

I'd also like to correct you, the resurrection did not bring justification. Christ's torturing and death brought justification. The resurrection brought .............. resurrection. Therefore, your concern about the resurrection being only relevant for believers is unfounded.

 

[janxharris]

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.

Could you clarify this post please - I don't understand what you are trying to say.

You have not refuted the point I made.

 

[Hammster]

Could you clarify this post please - I don't understand what you are trying to say.

You have not refuted the point I made.

Okay, I'll refute clearer. Your interpretation is not based on the text. Paul is clearly writing a letter to a group. So "our" would refer to him and them. It's your theology that makes it universal, not the text.

And instead of trying to defeat particular redemption, how about making a solid argument for universal atonement?

 

[janxharris]

Since Paul was talking to believers, then, yes, it can be assumed that "our" is in reference to the elect.

Ok - you agree that his resurrection was for the justification of the elect exclusively.

I'd also like to correct you, the resurrection did not bring justification. Christ's torturing and death brought justification.

You question Paul's words? The resurrection is part of our justification.

The resurrection brought .............. resurrection. Therefore, your concern about the resurrection being only relevant for believers is unfounded

No, Paul says that Christ's resurrection was for our justification.

You have not dealt with my post:

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.

 

[janxharris]

Okay, I'll refute clearer. Your interpretation is not based on the text. Paul is clearly writing a letter to a group. So "our" would refer to him and them. It's your theology that makes it universal, not the text.

Right, so you say that Christ was only resurrected for the justification of the elect.

You have not engaged with my post. I have altered it in view of you clarification:

Paul says that Christ was raised to life for our justification. You say 'our' means the elect, so what business has he (Paul) 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 them His resurrection was for all. Paul's gospel in Romans 10:9 only makes sense if this is the case.

And instead of trying to defeat particular redemption, how about making a solid argument for universal atonement?

Something for another thread.

 

[Hammster]

Right, so you say that Christ was only resurrected for the justification of the elect.

You have not engaged with my post. I have altered it in view of you clarification:

Paul says that Christ was raised to life for our justification. You say 'our' means the elect, so what business has he (Paul) 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 them His resurrection was for all. Paul's gospel in Romans 10:9 only makes sense if this is the case.



Something for another thread.

I never said "our" means only the elect. So try again.

 

[janxharris]

It does if you have to summon up the faith and make the decision. If you have done that, then you have made it a work.

Could you explain?

The reason they are commended is because they were looking forward to a messiah based purely off a promise. It is much harder to maintain faith in those situations. We look backward to a Messiah who has already done the work for us, and so we can better maintain our faith. It isn't as much the maintaining the faith as it is keeping the hope alive.

Isn't this missing the main point? You can't commend someone for something if it was as a resulty of what someone else did. God would be commending himself.

Yes, just like the men who killed Jesus. They fulfilled God's plan but were still held accountable.

Admitting to a contradiction should be a good reason to change one's theology shouldn't it?

I see you expect me to be a mind reader again.

It is in the OP and many of the posts I have made here. I don't understand why you can't see it.

 

[janxharris]

I never said "our" means only the elect. So try again.

Please, it would be helpful if you would expound a little. You said this:
Paul is clearly writing a letter to a group. So "our" would refer to him and them.

'Him and them' are the elect in your view aren't they?

 

[Hammster]

Please, it would be helpful if you would expound a little. You said this:
Paul is clearly writing a letter to a group. So "our" would refer to him and them.

'Him and them' are the elect in your view aren't they?

"Our" means Paul and those he's writing to. They happen to be elect, even in your theology (I assume). That's who "our" refers to.

 

[A New Dawn]

Ok - you agree that his resurrection was for the justification of the elect exclusively.

I'm not sure why I need to restate the same thing over and over. I suggest you re-read what I posted if you are in doubt.

You question Paul's words? The resurrection is part of our justification.

If you read the whole passage, you'd understand that Paul was talking about the encompassing work of Christ, not just the resurrection. I don't believe that Christ resurrected himself, that was not part of HIS work, but there would be no eternal life without the resurrection, so it was necessary. But, that said, again, all will be resurrected.

No, Paul says that Christ's resurrection was for our justification.

You have not dealt with my post:

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.

I believe that we have responded over and over to this. Go back and read my posts (this one, specifically).

 

[janxharris]

"Our" means Paul and those he's writing to. They happen to be elect, even in your theology (I assume). That's who "our" refers to.

Okay, it would seem that you were being pedantic in saying: I never said "our" means only the elect.

So you are saying that in the case of v.25 it means the elect and cannot refer to the non-elect (correct me if I am wrong)?

Can I ask why it is that even though I re-posted what you had previously not engaged with, you still just ignore it?

If you don't wish to interact with what I write just say so and we'll stop.

 

[janxharris]

I'm not sure why I need to restate the same thing over and over. I suggest you re-read what I posted if you are in doubt.

Right.

If you read the whole passage, you'd understand that Paul was talking about the encompassing work of Christ, not just the resurrection. I don't believe that Christ resurrected himself, that was not part of HIS work, but there would be no eternal life without the resurrection, so it was necessary. But, that said, again, all will be resurrected.

Why are you quibbling about the fact that Paul states that Christ was raised up again for our (per your view - the elect's) justification.

I already said that his resurrection was part of his work of justification, so we agree there - his atoning death on the cross is not to be forgotten, of course.

I believe that we have responded over and over to this. Go back and read my posts (this one, specifically).

I don't think you can have understood my point, for your link does not address it.

I'll try again:

For you, the 'our' of Romans 4:25 means the elect - however, Paul preached salvation to the non-elect though faith in Christ's resurrection.

So Paul preached salvation to the non-elect through faith in a resurrection that was exclusively for the elect's justification?

Can't you see that this is incongruous and unacceptable?

 

[janxharris]

For the Calvinist the 'our' of Romans 4:25 means the elect:

He was delivered over to death for our (the elect's) sins and raised to life for our (the elect's) justification.

However, Paul preached salvation to the non-elect though faith in that very resurrection, which means Paul is calling for belief in something that was never intended for their justification. Paul would never do such a thing. It demonstrates that the doctrine of limited atonement is untenable for it makes scripture contradictory.

 

[heymikey80]

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.

First off, Rom 4:25 doesnt establish what you say. You havent demonstrated Paul is preaching here to the nonelect.

Second, though: it seems your challenge bears equally against foreknowledge. Jesus knows who is who, I'll cite if you wish (Jn 6:63-65). So are you telling me you dont have a reason? Particular election is much the same: God sees it as important that even some He knows will refuse, should have a hearing. There are precedents, as in human courts the whole trial is performed before the defendant, and his defiance does not lead one judge to say, "Oh, this is futile, let him go on in his ignorance til we pronounce sentence." The defiant hear what the justified actually heed.

 

[janxharris]

First off, Rom 4:25 doesnt establish what you say. You havent demonstrated Paul is preaching here to the nonelect.

Second, though: it seems your challenge bears equally against foreknowledge. Jesus knows who is who, I'll cite if you wish (Jn 6:63-65). So are you telling me you dont have a reason? Particular election is much the same: God sees it as important that even some He knows will refuse, should have a hearing. There are precedents, as in human courts the whole trial is performed before the defendant, and his defiance does not lead one judge to say, "Oh, this is futile, let him go on in his ignorance til we pronounce sentence." The defiant hear what the justified actually heed.

Foreknowledge of who will and who will not believe is BASED ON what they actually choose to do. They actually have the ability to choose one way or the other (I speak synergistically of course). Attempting to taint with the same brush won't work. Foreordination excludes the non-elect form reacting positively to the gospel - they WON'T be regenrated - right? John Calvin was explicit on this:

By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.
(Institutes of the Christian Religion - Book 3, Chapter 21, Section 5)​

An astonishing statement from a Christian. You cannot equate the Arminian view with this. It is almost like holding God to account for being omniscient. The gospel should not not be preached because one knows they won't believe. God's foreknowledge is based on seeing that they never believed each time they were presented with the gospel.

Didn't understand your court analogy.

 

[janxharris]

First off, Rom 4:25 doesnt establish what you say. You havent demonstrated Paul is preaching here to the nonelect.

Since it leads to an anomaly in the preaching of salvation through belief in Christ's resurrection then the 'our' of Romans 4:25 cannot mean 'the elect' (per Calvinism) and must mean all.

 

[janxharris]

This remains unrefuted:

For the Calvinist the 'our' of Romans 4:25 means the elect:
"He was delivered over to death for our sins and raised to life for our justification."

However, Paul preached salvation to the non-elect though faith in that very resurrection that the Calvinist claim they are justificationally excluded from. Paul would never do such a thing. It demonstrates that the doctrine of limited atonement and its concomitant limited resurrection (regarding justification) is untenable for it makes scripture contradictory.
​

.

 

[Hammster]

Okay, it would seem that you were being pedantic in saying: I never said "our" means only the elect.

So you are saying that in the case of v.25 it means the elect and cannot refer to the non-elect (correct me if I am wrong)?

Can I ask why it is that even though I re-posted what you had previously not engaged with, you still just ignore it?

If you don't wish to interact with what I write just say so and we'll stop.

I never said "our" only means elect because it's true. I also would never use that passage to prove limited atonement. I think the problem is that you assume I would, and so you are arguing against an argument that I wouldn't make.

Paul's use of "our" is what it is. He is referring to himself and the Roman church. To make the scope any larger than that is stretching the text beyond its limits.

 

[Hammster]

For the Calvinist the 'our' of Romans 4:25 means the elect:

He was delivered over to death for our (the elect's) sins and raised to life for our (the elect's) justification.

However, Paul preached salvation to the non-elect though faith in that very resurrection, which means Paul is calling for belief in something that was never intended for their justification. Paul would never do such a thing. It demonstrates that the doctrine of limited atonement is untenable for it makes scripture contradictory.

Again, you are making a false accusation. "Our" means Paul and his readers in Rome. Were they elect? Yes. And they were in your theological system, too.