- Apr 5, 2007
- 144,404
- 27,056
- 57
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
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.
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.
If you want to talk about quibbling, isn't this whole thread just a quibbling point for you? All will be resurrected, period. That is not a discussion point. Then you moved the goalposts to whether the resurrection is beneficial because your original statement was proved wrong. But I am not quibbling over that point, you are.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.
My post specifically addressed it. The preaching was for those who have ears to hear. And if the non-elect did hear it, they didn't care that it wasn't for them. No incongruity at all. And perfectly acceptable.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?
It works great! Anyone will put their effort toward known results. Why would God try to reach people He knows will stay His enemy?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.
If by positively you mean the exact same way as the elect, youre wrong. That is nothing like Calvinism.Foreordination excludes the non-elect form reacting positively to the gospel - they WON'T be regenerated - right?
And I can misquote people equally well, I just try not to. This is Calvin distinguishing Gods prescience from His predestination. God organizes the conditions people are born into as well. Not all men are kings, nor servants, nor free. God chooses the environment and the genetics. God chooses the attitudes of the heart, and how He will change it. Certainly you believe God chose how the world was made. Did God "wing it" on details? Where is His omniscience? He wasnt simply a warm Spirit above the void.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.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.
(Institutes of the Christian Religion - Book 3, Chapter 21, Section 5)
The court is interested in more than practical. It is interested in what's right.Didn't understand your court analogy.
Is the poster going to engage with the OP?
Or, it could (and does) mean Paul and his immediate audience.
It could mean a lot of things, I suppose. But we need to understand what it does mean. We get that from context. And the context is Paul and his immediate audience.Could Paul's statement, 'He was delivered over to death for our sins and raised to life for our justification,' ever reference the non-elect?
Why have you not responded to my charge that Calvinism leads to a contradiction here?
My post specifically addressed it. The preaching was for those who have ears to hear. And if the non-elect did hear it, they didn't care that it wasn't for them. No incongruity at all. And perfectly acceptable.
But, again, what I pointed out to you still goes. In Isaiah God said that HE will do with HIS word what HE wants and it will not return to him void.
There is nothing in the scriptures that states that everyone has to be able to respond to the invitation, to which you replied that there was, but failed to point it out beside some vague response of "Romans". If you want to discuss that specific verse, then maybe that is the one you should be focusing on. If there is nothing making that claim, then your argument is null.
It works great! Anyone will put their effort toward known results. Why would God try to reach people He knows will stay His enemy?
Same question. Iteration 2.
If by positively you mean the exact same way as the elect, youre wrong. That is nothing like Calvinism.
If by positively you mean playing nice, or thinking the gospel benefits them or holds some advantage, that never saved anyone in the first place. Luke 8.
And I can misquote people equally well, I just try not to. This is Calvin distinguishing Gods prescience from His predestination. God organizes the conditions people are born into as well. Not all men are kings, nor servants, nor free. God chooses the environment and the genetics. God chooses the attitudes of the heart, and how He will change it. Certainly you believe God chose how the world was made. Did God "wing it" on details? Where is His omniscience? He wasnt simply a warm Spirit above the void.
The court is interested in more than practical. It is interested in what's right.
It could mean a lot of things, I suppose. But we need to understand what it does mean. We get that from context. And the context is Paul and his immediate audience.
Because there's no contradiction.
You can't trap Calvinists because you can't trap the teachings of the Bible.
You suppose? You did not answer the question.
My contradiction charge stands since you have not properly engaged with nor refuted it.
When it suits you, 'our' means the elect - but when it doesn't - when it leads to an anomaly that you can't deal with - you obscure it's meaning.
It could mean a lot of things, I suppose. But we need to understand what it does mean. We get that from context. And the context is Paul and his immediate audience.
So it can mean the non-elect?
Please back this up with some sort of evidence. You're accusing me of changing definitions to suit a need. That's a pretty heavy accusation.
Yes, if context is ignored.
I did not say you 'changed' definitions.
Are you going to answer the contradiction charge or not? Of course, you will have to define 'our' first - but you won't pin it down will you?
Hence what I said.
Either way, the anomaly remains unrefuted.
Right, so you finally assert that it does not mean the non-elect.
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?