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.
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 the non-elect are excluded from regarding justification. Paul would never do such a thing.
Of course not. There's no non-elect in a church.
The problem is you are only seeing two possibilities. Either it means everyone who has ever lived, or your contrived idea that Calvinists mean just the elect. You are ignoring what I'm saying when I say that Paul was talking about himself and his audience. In other words, you are ignoring context to make your false accusation.
Actually, for Calvinists, the "our" means whoever Paul is talking about. Who is he talking about?
Are you saying that in your view, some of the non-elect will be saved?
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?
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.
Bumping for janxharris.
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.
No attempt to answer the anomaly then?
You have said it's not the non-elect. Why the need to explain further?
Contrived idea? What are you talking about?
7 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people:
This would be the elect per your definition.
I don't use the word as you do. The elect are the whosoever wills so there is no contradiction for the Arminian.
You have not answered the anomaly and I say Calvinism cannot deal with it.
You aren't listening.
It's not the non-elect because it's written to the local church. Paul has himself and the local church in view here. You still refuse to look at it as a letter to a local church.
It's as if I wrote you a letter and said "Hey Jan, blah, blah, blah...being a sinner is terrible. I struggle a lot with my sin, and you do too. It's great that we can say Christ died for our sins". Since it would be a personal note, you'd have to go outside of what I said to think I meant that Christ died for everyone. I would mean you and I.
So no anomaly. Paul isn't saying "our" means all of the elect, not is he saying that "our" means everyone who has ever lived. It's strictly him and them.
Thank you for pointing out who Paul is writing to. That's who is included in "our".
Regardless, you think that Paul would only ever direct such a statement to believers - to the elect. That Paul is specifically addressing Romans in no way alters whom you think 'our' refers to.
25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
Per your view, 'our' is established as elect Romans but by extension means all the elect exclusively. Ditto with the second 'our'.
For Paul to preach v.9 to the non-elect remains an anomaly for you.
You are fiddling while Rome burns are you? You think your definition of 'our' gets your theology off the hook? Just because you won't explicitly say it means the elect?
You mean, because I won't specifically say something Paul didn't mean
wow. Someone needs to tell ol' John about that.Of course not. There's no non-elect in a church.
Since Paul asserts that (per your view) Christ was delivered over to death for the sins of Paul and the believers of Rome, and resurrected for their justification, then he would say exactly the same for any true believer.
That is the elect.
It's always more complicated than people want, though Paul clears up exactly who he is addressing in Rom 1:7, beloved of God, called to be saints. Granted, they're the people Paul assumes are in his audience.Of course not. There's no non-elect in a church.
The problem is you are only seeing two possibilities. Either it means everyone who has ever lived, or your contrived idea that Calvinists mean just the elect. You are ignoring what I'm saying when I say that Paul was talking about himself and his audience. In other words, you are ignoring context to make your false accusation.
'Scuze me, but "the church of Christ" was not what was in your post. Here's a refresher on that post:They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. (1 John 2:19 NASB)
Right. He's not talking about true believers. So they were not part of the church of Christ.
'Scuze me, but "the church of Christ" was not what was in your post. Here's a refresher on that post:
Of course not. There's no non-elect in a church.
I do believe that the word "a church" is quite different in meaning than "the church of Christ". Unless one ignores the meanings of words.
You are splitting hairs in order to extricate Calvinism from the just charge I have brought against it.
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?