Does Romans 10 disprove particular atonement?

[janxharris]

So are you saying that everyone believes the truth?

No.

 

[Hammster]

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.

It's really not different. But that's another discussion.

 

[FreeGrace2]

It's really not different. But that's another discussion.

It's always interesting to see how Calvinists ignore the actual meanings of words, in order to defend their errors.

 

[Hammster]

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.

Can you not see the vast eisegesis you have going here? I'm taking what he says at face value, and you add all this stuff that's not there.

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.

So you think that cutting and pasting scripture is the only way to argue against limited atonement? I guess that's good to know.

 

[Hammster]

No.

Then answer the question. What would make someone believe something that they think is false?

 

[Hammster]

It's always interesting to see how Calvinists ignore the actual meanings of words, in order to defend their errors.

Are you going to add anything constructive to this discussion?

 

[A New Dawn]

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.

This whole forum is Calvinists actually specifying the errors that non-Calvinists make regarding Calvinism. 98% of the people arguing against Calvinism get it wrong, and end up trying to force Calvinists into defending something that they don't believe, while the Calvinist tries to explain why what the non-Calvinist says is incorrect about their views of Calvinism. I have literally seen only two posters post in this section who are not Calvinist who actually seem to understand what Calvinists believe. The rest of you hate the thought of it so much that you just can't accept that what we tell you about Calvinism is true.

 

[janxharris]

Can you not see the vast eisegesis you have going here? I'm taking what he says at face value, and you add all this stuff that's not there.

Okay - you are not dealing with my point, again. This is what I said:

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.

So you think that cutting and pasting scripture is the only way to argue against limited atonement? I guess that's good to know.

Once again, there are ZERO scriptures that explicitly teach LA. Yes, I have taken from different chapters of the same book, but they are related verses.

The only point you made was that Paul didn't know who the elect were but Paul knew he would be talking to those you say are non-elect.

Paul's still lying under your theology.

 

[FreeGrace2]

This whole forum is Calvinists actually specifying the errors that non-Calvinists make regarding Calvinism. 98% of the people arguing against Calvinism get it wrong, and end up trying to force Calvinists into defending something that they don't believe, while the Calvinist tries to explain why what the non-Calvinist says is incorrect about their views of Calvinism.

With all respect, this is nonsense. There is a lot of complaining about how non-Calvinists don't understand Calvinism when non-Calvinists bring up any of the 5 points of Calvinism. Yet, there is no correction of where the error is. Seems the Calvinists don't really want to admit or face the errors in their own view.

I have literally seen only two posters post in this section who are not Calvinist who actually seem to understand what Calvinists believe.

Then why haven't any of the Calvinists patiently corrected ALL those errors?

The rest of you hate the thought of it so much that you just can't accept that what we tell you about Calvinism is true.

Quite judgmental, huh. How would one know what is in the mind of others?

 

[janxharris]

This whole forum is Calvinists actually specifying the errors that non-Calvinists make regarding Calvinism. 98% of the people arguing against Calvinism get it wrong, and end up trying to force Calvinists into defending something that they don't believe, while the Calvinist tries to explain why what the non-Calvinist says is incorrect about their views of Calvinism. I have literally seen only two posters post in this section who are not Calvinist who actually seem to understand what Calvinists believe. The rest of you hate the thought of it so much that you just can't accept that what we tell you about Calvinism is true.

What is it that we have got wrong?

 

[A New Dawn]

The only point you made was that Paul didn't know who the elect were but Paul knew he would be talking to those you say are non-elect.

Paul's still lying under your theology.

This is who Paul is talking to in Romans:

Romans 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul is talking to those who were already believers. Why would he be a liar if he is talking to those who already believe in Christ?

 

[Hammster]

Okay - you are not dealing with my point, again. This is what I said:

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.

Paul doesn't know who the non-elect are. But if you are right, then there's no need to even ask them to believe because they are already justified.

Once again, there are ZERO scriptures that explicitly teach LA. Yes, I have taken from different chapters of the same book, but they are related verses.

There are plenty that do. But the fact that you are unaware is irrelevant to the fact that you cannot defend your view without dipping into the pool of universalism.

The only point you made was that Paul didn't know who the elect were but Paul knew he would be talking to those you say are non-elect.

Paul's still lying under your theology.

It's not lying. If you believe, you'll be saved. Not a lie.

 

[janxharris]

This is who Paul is talking to in Romans:

Romans 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul is talking to those who were already believers. Why would he be a liar if he is talking to those who already believe in Christ?

You are seriously dening this:
Romans 10:8-9
But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

?

 

[janxharris]

Paul doesn't know who the non-elect are. But if you are right, then there's no need to even ask them to believe because they are already justified.

No, they have to believe. 1 Cor 1:21.

There are plenty that do.

As is your wont, you offer none. There are none.

But the fact that you are unaware is irrelevant to the fact that you cannot defend your view without dipping into the pool of universalism.

I'm not a universalist.

It's not lying. If you believe, you'll be saved. Not a lie.

It's a lie. Paul: "I know some of these people I preach to will be the non-elect - that God passed over them and Jesus did not die for them nor rose for their justification - but I'll tell them to believe in it anyway. I'll even tell them it isn't too difficult or beyond their reach."

 

[Hammster]

No, they have to believe. 1 Cor 1:21.

More cutting and pasting to get your message across.

As is your wont, you offer none. There are none.

That's not what the thread is about. You won't offer up a positive argument for unlimited atonement.

I'm not a universalist.

I know. But you should be on the way that you use scripture.

It's a lie. Paul: "I know some of these people I preach to will be the non-elect - that God passed over them and Jesus did not die for them nor rose for their justification - but I'll tell them to believe in it anyway. I'll even tell them it isn't too difficult or beyond their reach."

It's only a lie if Paul thought there would be some who would believe and not be saved. Of course, that's actually closer to Arminianism.

 

[nobdysfool]

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.

Nothing to rebut. You quite handily did so yourself. You are demonstrably adding words to what Paul said, and/or accusing us of the same. I assure you, Calvinists are not doing what you repeatedly accuse us of. Stop making up accusations out of whole cloth! It is clear that you are desperately trying to hold on to a view that has been clearly shown to be false, because you cannot bear the thought that you have been wrong about this contrived problem, and what Calvinists believe in general.

 

[janxharris]

More cutting and pasting to get your message across.

That's not what the thread is about. You won't offer up a positive argument for unlimited atonement. I know. But you should be on the way that you use scripture.

It's only a lie if Paul thought there would be some who would believe and not be saved. Of course, that's actually closer to Arminianism.

No, Paul makes it abundantly clear that he desires the salvation of his unsaved kinsman and explains that one does not need to, 'ascend into heaven,' or, 'descend into the deep,' which equates well with Moses', 'not too difficult or beyond your reach. This does not harmonise with your UE/LA one jot.

Try reading through Romans 10 with your interpretation of Romans 9:15 in mind. It does not work.

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

Did Paul forget what he has just established? It's not too difficult, but if your not elect then you cannot believe? Christ rose again for the justification of the elect, but believe in what has no relevance for you and you'll be saved?

Your theology has been shown to be inconsistent.

 

[janxharris]

Nothing to rebut. You quite handily did so yourself. You are demonstrably adding words to what Paul said, and/or accusing us of the same. I assure you, Calvinists are not doing what you repeatedly accuse us of. Stop making up accusations out of whole cloth! It is clear that you are desperately trying to hold on to a view that has been clearly shown to be false, because you cannot bear the thought that you have been wrong about this contrived problem, and what Calvinists believe in general.

Your interpretation of Romans 9 has it that Paul establishes unconditional election, but, as I have clearly shown you, it is incongruous with Romans 10. My added words are mindful of your understanding regarding those scriptures.
It remains the case that your theology makes Paul a liar. Some of those men he preached to were excluded from the justification of Christ's resurrection (your view). And yet Paul enjoins them to believe it for salvation.

That is an contradiction - no question. But you do not, cannot deal with it.

If you want a incontrovertible case of adding to scripture then look no further than limited atonement. To tell the world that Christ did not die for all men when the bible NEVER says so is astonishing.

 

[nobdysfool]

What seems to be the point of contention (at least from one side) is that there is a demand for a scripture that explicitly and specifically details the Calvinist position on this issue in just so many words. In other words, someone here doesn't want to have to do the work of searching the Scriptures, and putting together the Truth. He wants one scripture that says it, straight out.

Sometimes, for some people, things must be spelled out in just so many words, in order for them to 'get it'. They can't read between the lines, or put things together from several different sources. They tend to be somewhat less sharp, less adept at abstract thinking, at puzzles, at things that require an expenditure of mental effort. they want clear, sharply defined rules and declarations that they can just then follow by rote, without having to think. And they accuse Calvinists of being robots???

The rest of us, realize that God did not make everything so completely evident, so that those who consider themselves wise would miss it, and He could reveal His truths to those who are humble, who do not consider themselves to be wise, but rather wholly depend on Him.

Ask any true bible scholar, and he will tell you that despite his years of study, and digging into the Word of God, there are depths that he cannot perceive or fathom, that there are things yet to be discovered and uncovered, and that his only regret is that he will not see those things in this life.

Those who demand clear, succinctly stated verses for every and all doctrines engage in a shallow interpretation akin to a body of water that is a mile square, but only an inch deep.

 

[janxharris]

What seems to be the point of contention (at least from one side) is that there is a demand for a scripture that explicitly and specifically details the Calvinist position on this issue in just so many words. In other words, someone here doesn't want to have to do the work of searching the Scriptures, and putting together the Truth. He wants one scripture that says it, straight out.

Sometimes, for some people, things must be spelled out in just so many words, in order for them to 'get it'. They can't read between the lines, or put things together from several different sources. They tend to be somewhat less sharp, less adept at abstract thinking, at puzzles, at things that require an expenditure of mental effort. they want clear, sharply defined rules and declarations that they can just then follow by rote, without having to think. And they accuse Calvinists of being robots???

The rest of us, realize that God did not make everything so completely evident, so that those who consider themselves wise would miss it, and He could reveal His truths to those who are humble, who do not consider themselves to be wise, but rather wholly depend on Him.

Ask any true bible scholar, and he will tell you that despite his years of study, and digging into the Word of God, there are depths that he cannot perceive or fathom, that there are things yet to be discovered and uncovered, and that his only regret is that he will not see those things in this life.

Those who demand clear, succinctly stated verses for every and all doctrines engage in a shallow interpretation akin to a body of water that is a mile square, but only an inch deep.

Romans 10 proves limited atonement false or Paul is a liar. You haven't dealt with it.