Does Romans 10 disprove particular atonement?

[Hammster]

You confirm that you don't even have one explicit scripture that avails your position.

God sent Christ to die for less than all and yet not one scripture says so....

Your position is support by zero scriptures.

So are we talking about you supporting your position, or me supporting mine? Those aren't the same thing.

 

[janxharris]

I'll take this as an admission that my statement was true. You think Paul is talking about a potential justification.

It requires faith. Nobody is excluded unconditionally. Romans 10 is proof.

 

[janxharris]

So are we talking about you supporting your position, or me supporting mine? Those aren't the same thing.

Romans 10 is proof.

Can you explain why Paul isn't lying? Per your view, Paul knew he would preach to those whom you say were non-elect - he knew he would be preaching belief in a resurrection that was not for their justification. And quotes Moses to the extent that it was not too difficult...

That's lying.
Your not dealing with it.

 

[Hammster]

It requires faith. Nobody is excluded unconditionally. Romans 10 is proof.

Faith is not mentioned anywhere in the verse. So you've changed it's meaning. That's convenient.

 

[Hammster]

Romans 10 is proof.

Can you explain why Paul isn't lying? Per your view, Paul knew he would preach to those whom you say were non-elect - he knew he would be preaching belief in a resurrection that was not for their justification. And quotes Moses to the extent that it was not too difficult...

That's lying.
Your not dealing with it.

What does Paul say one must believe to be saved? That hadn't changed.

 

[janxharris]

What does Paul say one must believe to be saved? That hadn't changed.

Typo?

I asked this:

Can you explain why Paul isn't lying? Per your view, Paul knew he would preach to those whom you say were non-elect - he knew he would be preaching belief in a resurrection that was not for their justification. And quotes Moses to the extent that it was not too difficult...

That's lying.
Your not dealing with it.

 

[janxharris]

Paul quotes Moses who describes this word of faith as, 'not too difficult or beyond your reach,' and Paul preaches it to the unsaved. Notwithstanding this, the Calvinists says that salvation is effectively beyond the reach of the non-elect.

Contradiction.

 

[Hammster]

Typo?

I asked this:

Can you explain why Paul isn't lying? Per your view, Paul knew he would preach to those whom you say were non-elect - he knew he would be preaching belief in a resurrection that was not for their justification. And quotes Moses to the extent that it was not too difficult...

That's lying.
Your not dealing with it.

Paul isn't lying because what he said in 10:9 hasn't changed. You're not adding something, are you?

 

[Hammster]

Paul quotes Moses who describes this word of faith as, 'not too difficult or beyond your reach,' and Paul preaches it to the unsaved. Notwithstanding this, the Calvinists says that salvation is effectively beyond the reach of the non-elect.

Contradiction.

All they must do is believe. But you've never answers why one would choose to believe something that they think is not true.

 

[janxharris]

Paul isn't lying because what he said in 10:9 hasn't changed. You're not adding something, are you?

Those for whom Christ's resurrection would not justify are enjoin to believe in it unto salvation? Are you serious? They are eternally excluded and Paul says it's not too difficult?

No Paul isn't lying. The error is your theology.

 

[janxharris]

All they must do is believe. But you've never answers why one would choose to believe something that they think is not true.

You've never substantiated pre-faith regeneration. Revelation 3:20 describes synergism.

 

[Hammster]

Those for whom Christ's resurrection would not justify are enjoin to believe in it unto salvation? Are you serious? They are eternally excluded and Paul says it's not too difficult?

No Paul isn't lying. The error is your theology.

Where's the error? It's only an error if Paul is not telling the truth. I believe Paul meant it when he said that if you believe you'll be saved.

 

[Hammster]

You've never substantiated pre-faith regeneration. Revelation 3:20 describes synergism.

How many times have you avoided this now?

 

[janxharris]

Where's the error? It's only an error if Paul is not telling the truth. I believe Paul meant it when he said that if you believe you'll be saved.

The anomaly is that they are to believe in that which Calvinist's assert is not for them - Romans 4:25 - 'and raised again for our justification.'

Not their's, but 'ours' (you say). Paul disagreed - he enjoins belief in the resurrection BECAUSE CHRIST DIED FOR ALL AND ROSE FOR ALL. You can't enjoin belief in an event that some of your audience are excluded from.

 

[janxharris]

How many times have you avoided this now?

All they must do is believe. But you've never answers why one would choose to believe something that they think is not true.

Paul cites Moses who says, 'it's not too difficult or beyond your reach.'

You are wrong to say that:
why one would choose to believe something that they think is not true.

I have shown you, but you won't see it.

 

[Hammster]

The anomaly is that they are to believe in that which Calvinist's assert is not for them - Romans 4:25 - 'and raised again for our justification.'

Not their's, but 'ours' (you say). Paul disagreed - he enjoins belief in the resurrection BECAUSE CHRIST DIED FOR ALL AND ROSE FOR ALL. You can't enjoin belief in an event that some of your audience are excluded from.

Why are you so insistent on adding to what Paul says? Where does Paul mention justification in 10:9? Where does Paul mention faith in 4:25? There's two verses that you are using in which you must add to what Paul is saying to make your point even viable.


And let's not forget the fact that you have taken one verse from one chapter and jumped all the way ahead six chapters to make your argument.

 

[Hammster]

Paul cites Moses who says, 'it's not too difficult or beyond your reach.'

You are wrong to say that:
why one would choose to believe something that they think is not true.

I have shown you, but you won't see it.

So are you saying that everyone believes the truth?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Since I know what I meant, I know what I meant. Sorry to disappoint.

Yes, "a church" certainly is different than "the church of Jesus Christ". Being careful to be accurate will allow others to know what is meant in your posts, if that is important to you.

 

[FreeGrace2]

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.

Maybe Calvinists could actually specify any errors that occur by non-Calvinists when addressing. Just saying that non-Calvinists don't understand what Calvinists believe is equally disingenuous.

 

[janxharris]

Why are you so insistent on adding to what Paul says? Where does Paul mention justification in 10:9? Where does Paul mention faith in 4:25? There's two verses that you are using in which you must add to what Paul is saying to make your point even viable.

No mention of the word justification in v,9. Paul enjoin's belief in the resurrection because it was what Christ did FOR THEM. If they were excluded form it's benefits then you can't ask them to believe.

Come on, you know this is absurd.

And let's not forget the fact that you have taken one verse from one chapter and jumped all the way ahead six chapters to make your argument.

I wouldn't have to do it if a case wasn't being made for limiting the atonement and resurrection.

Let's not forget the you have ZERO verses that limit the atonement.