Does Romans 10 disprove particular atonement?

[nobdysfool]

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.

Do not presume to say that you know what I believe, because you clearly do not. I have not told you what I believe, and as long as there is this attempt to put me or anyone else on the defensive over straw man assertions, and out-and-out attacks on Calvinists merely for being Calvinists, I will not tell you what I believe. I do not play that game, sir. You clearly came here with a chip on your shoulder. That is the indication of a closed mind.

 

[Hammster]

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.

Who He has mercy on doesn't change what Paul says. Those who believe will be saved. I'm not sure why that's not getting through.

 

[Hammster]

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

Paul isn't a liar, and the atonement isn't in view.

 

[nobdysfool]

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

You forgot one very important thing: In Your Opinion.

Your assertion is merely that, an assertion based on how you want to see things. It does not carry the force of absolute truth.

Paul is not a liar. Your failure to understand his theology does not justify you calling him a liar if he doesn't agree with you, which is, in essence, what you are asserting.

I can't help it if you cannot read the Scriptures without preconceptions. That's your problem, not mine.

 

[janxharris]

Who He has mercy on doesn't change what Paul says. Those who believe will be saved. I'm not sure why that's not getting through.

Yes it does change what he says - Paul's words of heartfelt desire are empty - it's who God picks who will believe. It won't avail them that Paul says it's not too difficult etc - you were picker or you weren't.

Contradiction. Clear as day.

 

[janxharris]

You forgot one very important thing: In Your Opinion.

Your assertion is merely that, an assertion based on how you want to see things. It does not carry the force of absolute truth.

Paul is not a liar. Your failure to understand his theology does not justify you calling him a liar if he doesn't agree with you, which is, in essence, what you are asserting.

I can't help it if you cannot read the Scriptures without preconceptions. That's your problem, not mine.

No attempt to refute what I have said. That is a fail.

 

[janxharris]

You forgot one very important thing: In Your Opinion.

Your assertion is merely that, an assertion based on how you want to see things. It does not carry the force of absolute truth.

Paul is not a liar. Your failure to understand his theology does not justify you calling him a liar if he doesn't agree with you, which is, in essence, what you are asserting.

I can't help it if you cannot read the Scriptures without preconceptions. That's your problem, not mine.

Preaching salvation through belief in a resurrection to those Calvinists say were not chosen to benefit from that resurrection is inappropriate.

If you were able to defend your theology you would actually engage with what I have argued.

 

[Hammster]

Yes it does change what he says - Paul's words of heartfelt desire are empty - it's who God picks who will believe. It won't avail them that Paul says it's not too difficult etc - you were picker or you weren't.

Contradiction. Clear as day.

So Paul can't desire for Jews to be saved?

 

[Hammster]

Preaching salvation through belief in a resurrection to those Calvinists say were not chosen to benefit from that resurrection is inappropriate.

If you were able to defend your theology you would actually engage with what I have argued.

Once again, you insist on adding to what Paul says in 10:9. When will you stop this?

 

[janxharris]

So Paul can't desire for Jews to be saved?

Yes - but if you expound the remedy and say it's not too difficult when in fact Calvinist's say Paul establishes unconditional election in the previous chapter then it's a false hope.

 

[EmSw]

So Paul can't desire for Jews to be saved?

Not if he wants to be like God. But unlike the Reformed character of God, Paul desired for all his kinsmen to be saved, something God never desired, according to RT. Therefore, Paul had a more compassionate heart and love for all Jews.

- By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.
ch.3, Westminster Confession of Faith

 

[janxharris]

Once again, you insist on adding to what Paul says in 10:9. When will you stop this?

Which bit is not true?

Preaching salvation through belief in a resurrection to those whom Calvinists say were not chosen to benefit from that resurrection is inappropriate.

1. Paul did preach salvation through belief in Christ resurrection to the non-elect

That is true.

2. Christ having not died for the non-elect (your view) did not justify them through his resurrection.

This would be true under your view.

3. Paul has grossly mislead some of those he preaches to.

True.

 

[nobdysfool]

No attempt to refute what I have said. That is a fail.

I don't waste my time trying to refute straw men, which by definition, have no real existence. This is not about refutation. Those who think it is are engaging in a water contest, trying to outdo each other in how far they can urinate.

 

[nobdysfool]

Preaching salvation through belief in a resurrection to those Calvinists say were not chosen to benefit from that resurrection is inappropriate.

If you were able to defend your theology you would actually engage with what I have argued.

I don't need to, because you have already shown your view to be a made-up construct. Too bad you haven't realized that yet.

I have already told you I will not engage in an atmosphere of being on the defensive. I can defend my theology. I will choose when, where and under what conditions I will do so. The current atmosphere is not conducive to that. I have been here over 10 years, so I CAN defend my theology, and I have done so, repeatedly and effectively in the past. I will not be bullied into it.

 

[janxharris]

.

 

[Hammster]

Yes - but if you expound the remedy and say it's not too difficult when in fact Calvinist's say Paul establishes unconditional election in the previous chapter then it's a false hope.

No such thing as false hope. Paul can desire the salvation of his kin. That's not counter to Calvinism.

 

[Hammster]

Which bit is not true?

Preaching salvation through belief in a resurrection to those whom Calvinists say were not chosen to benefit from that resurrection is inappropriate.

1. Paul did preach salvation through belief in Christ resurrection to the non-elect

That is true.

2. Christ having not died for the non-elect (your view) did not justify them through his resurrection.

This would be true under your view.

3. Paul has grossly mislead some of those he preaches to.

True.

What did Paul say must be believed to be saved? And please, don't add to scripture.

 

[janxharris]

No such thing as false hope. Paul can desire the salvation of his kin. That's not counter to Calvinism.

You expediently left out the not too difficult bit.

Is it not too difficult, or is it Russian roulette? Paul said the former.

 

[janxharris]

What did Paul say must be believed to be saved?

You didn't respond to my post because you have no answer to the anomaly.

Paul said that faith is not like ascending into heaven - so belief in the resurrection is not excluded from some men.

 

[FreeGrace2]

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.

To be clear, I've never asked for any "specific words". What I do demand are verses that clearly communicate the claims of Calvinism, which, to date, has not been done.

Where's the clear concept that Christ didn't die for everyone?
Where's the clear concept that God chooses who will believe?

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.

Maybe the real lazy ones are those who make claims about what the Bible teaches, but just can't seem to find them.