Does Romans 10 disprove particular atonement?

[EmSw]

Actually, it is YOU who is splitting hairs to keep alive a bogus argument that has been thoroughly eviscerated. It is also very disingenuous to be attempting to tell Calvinists (or anyone else) what Calvinists believe. It is clear that you do not understand what you think to oppose.

I personally don't believe all Calvinists know fully what they believe. I have put forth many questions and have yet to get straight answers from RT adherents, except for a precious few (Marvin Knox and Hedrick come to mind).

Why would God determine and ordain Calvinists to have different beliefs? Why didn't He determine all RT's to believe the same thing? Was that too hard for Him to have all Calvinists to know and believe the truth?

Matthew 12:25.

 

[janxharris]

Yes, he would say that to any true believer. Even in your theology. Now you are getting it.

It is obviously expedient for you (in view of my charge) to forget your interpretation of Romans 9 when reading Romans 4:25. How subtle. Even so, you are admitting that you think Paul would only ever use 'our' (when speaking of the scope of Christ's death and resurrection) to mean the elect. That you don't follow this admission with a rebuttal of my charge is baffling for it means, as I have stated time and again, that Paul preaches salvation to those who are excluded form the very event they are enjoined to believe in:

Paul: (Audibly) Believe in the resurrection but (silently), by the way, Christ's resurrection exclusively justified the elect.

Are you fully cognizant of how incongruous - indeed, how absurd this is? Paul the cynic, who doesn't care about the norms of decency - 'Christ's resurrection justified the elect, but nonetheless, I shall tell the non-elect to believe it anyway?'

Your interpretation of 'our' is demonstrably false.

 

[janxharris]

Actually, it is YOU who is splitting hairs to keep alive a bogus argument that has been thoroughly eviscerated. It is also very disingenuous to be attempting to tell Calvinists (or anyone else) what Calvinists believe. It is clear that you do not understand what you think to oppose.

It is a fact that CALVINISM'S understanding of Paul's use of 'our' in Romans 4:25 (that it means the elect) leads to an anomaly when he preaches the Gospel (in Romans 10:9). For then Paul preaches salvation to those who are excluded form the very event they are enjoined to believe in:

Paul: (Audibly) Believe in the resurrection but (silently), by the way, Christ's resurrection exclusively justified the elect.

Are you fully cognizant of how incongruous - indeed, how absurd this is? I don't think you can be, can you?

I await your rebuttal.

 

[janxharris]

This from monergism.com

Limited Atonement by Brian Schwertley

If Jesus’ statement regarding bearing the sins of the sheep were contrary to all the other biblical teaching regarding the extent of the atonement, election, predestination, and so on, one could reasonably argue that perhaps this passage does not mean what it appears to mean. There are several passages, however, which teach that Christ died not for every individual, including those in hell, but only for His church. Writing to Roman Christians Paul says: “Jesus our Lord...was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification“ (Rom. 4:25).

 

[Hammster]

It is obviously expedient for you (in view of my charge) to forget your interpretation of Romans 9 when reading Romans 4:25. How subtle. Even so, you are admitting that you think Paul would only ever use 'our' (when speaking of the scope of Christ's death and resurrection) to mean the elect. That you don't follow this admission with a rebuttal of my charge is baffling for it means, as I have stated time and again, that Paul preaches salvation to those who are excluded form the very event they are enjoined to believe in:

Paul: (Audibly) Believe in the resurrection but (silently), by the way, Christ's resurrection exclusively justified the elect.

Are you fully cognizant of how incongruous - indeed, how absurd this is? Paul the cynic, who doesn't care about the norms of decency - 'Christ's resurrection justified the elect, but nonetheless, I shall tell the non-elect to believe it anyway?'

Your interpretation of 'our' is demonstrably false.

It's not false. I don't know if you really don't understand what I'm saying, or if you are just struggling to hold onto an argument that's been proven false. I hope the former, but after all this time I suspect the latter.

I think you are so focused on elect/non-elect that that you can't believe what I'm saying. Paul's use of "our" is just normal conversation. He's writing to a church. So "our" means him and them. And in 1:7 he establishes who they are. Even if your view of the atonement is correct, conceding this point does no damage to your argument.

 

[Hammster]

This from monergism.com

Limited Atonement by Brian Schwertley

If Jesus’ statement regarding bearing the sins of the sheep were contrary to all the other biblical teaching regarding the extent of the atonement, election, predestination, and so on, one could reasonably argue that perhaps this passage does not mean what it appears to mean. There are several passages, however, which teach that Christ died not for every individual, including those in hell, but only for His church. Writing to Roman Christians Paul says: “Jesus our Lord...was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification“ (Rom. 4:25).

Are you saying that He wasn't?

 

[janxharris]

It's not false. I don't know if you really don't understand what I'm saying, or if you are just struggling to hold onto an argument that's been proven false. I hope the former, but after all this time I suspect the latter.

I think you are so focused on elect/non-elect that that you can't believe what I'm saying. Paul's use of "our" is just normal conversation. He's writing to a church. So "our" means him and them. And in 1:7 he establishes who they are. Even if your view of the atonement is correct, conceding this point does no damage to your argument.

You are not fully engaging with the content of my post because I have shown you an irrefutable anomaly in Calvinism's theology. It is expedient for you to play down the fact that Calvinist's cite Romans 4:25 in defence of LA (just google it). In Romans 9 you consider that Paul establishes unconditional election so Romans 4:25 must be, de facto, another example of the underpinning of LA and election.

Romans 4:25 in the light of your understanding of Romans 9 creates an anomaly in Romans 10:9. You haven't dealt with it.

 

[janxharris]

Are you saying that He wasn't?

?

 

[janxharris]

It's not false. I don't know if you really don't understand what I'm saying, or if you are just struggling to hold onto an argument that's been proven false. I hope the former, but after all this time I suspect the latter.

I think you are so focused on elect/non-elect that that you can't believe what I'm saying. Paul's use of "our" is just normal conversation. He's writing to a church. So "our" means him and them. And in 1:7 he establishes who they are. Even if your view of the atonement is correct, conceding this point does no damage to your argument.

Why does Paul preach salvation to the non-elect through belief in Christ's resurrection which you think Paul considered was only intended for the justification of the elect?

 

[Hammster]

You are not fully engaging with the content of my post because I have shown you an irrefutable anomaly in Calvinism's theology. It is expedient for you to play down the fact that Calvinist's cite Romans 4:25 in defence of LA (just google it). In Romans 9 you consider that Paul establishes unconditional election so Romans 4:25 must be, de facto, another example of the underpinning of LA and election.

Romans 4:25 in the light of your understanding of Romans 9 creates an anomaly in Romans 10:9. You haven't dealt with it.

Is Paul talking to the elect in 4:25?

 

[Hammster]

Why does Paul preach salvation to the non-elect through belief in Christ's resurrection which you think Paul considered was only intended for the justification of the elect?

For clarification, what do you think Paul means by justification?

 

[janxharris]

For clarification, what do you think Paul means by justification?

Justification is to make righteous through the removal of sin.

 

[janxharris]

Is Paul talking to the elect in 4:25?

We have a different definition of elect. Christ died for all men and rose for all men.

You would never tell the unsaved that Christ died for their sins and you do not think that Paul would either. Same with the resurrection. For you, it is only applies to true believers - your definition of the elect.

Romans 10:9 makes your theology untenable. You keep posting, but there's been nothing that even attempts to resolves the contradiction.

 

[Hammster]

Justification is to make righteous through the removal of sin.

He was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification. (Romans 4:25 HCSB)

So then, based on this definition, and your understanding that "our" means everyone, how is this not universalism?

 

[Hammster]

We have a different definition of elect. Christ died for all men and rose for all men.

You would never tell the unsaved that Christ died for their sins and you do not think that Paul would either. Same with the resurrection. For you, it is only applies to true believers - your definition of the elect.

Romans 10:9 makes your theology untenable. You keep posting, but there's been nothing that even attempts to resolves the contradiction.

You avoided the question. Is Paul talking to elect people?

 

[janxharris]

He was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification. (Romans 4:25 HCSB)

So then, based on this definition, and your understanding that "our" means everyone, how is this not universalism?

Faith is required. You are avoiding answering the contradiction I pose.

 

[janxharris]

You avoided the question. Is Paul talking to elect people?

Paul is talking to the Christians of Rome but he includes all men without exception. Christ died for all - that is explicitly taught in scripture, Hebrews 2:9.

When are you going to stop avoiding what I have asked you many times now?

 

[janxharris]

For clarification, what do you think Paul means by justification?

Why does Paul preach salvation to the non-elect through belief in Christ's resurrection which you think Paul considered was only intended for the justification of the elect?

 

[Hammster]

Faith is required. You are avoiding answering the contradiction I pose.

That's not what it says.

 

[janxharris]

That's not what it says.

Anything but deal with what I keep asking you.

Read the whole of Romans 4
5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.