Paul considered that Christ's resurrection was of universal salvific benefit (2)

[janxharris]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "Paul considered that Christ's resurrection was of universal salvific benefit"

 

[janxharris]

Romans 10:3
Since they (the Israelites) did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.

They did not submit to God's righteousness. Not could not...they did not.
If Paul had just established election/reprobation in Romans 9, then some of them could not. But Paul desires their salvation, pinpoints their error and provides the solution - so they can (submit) otherwise Paul is lying. And Paul explicitly says that faith is not like ascending into heaven.

Calvinism is unable to deal with this refutation election/reprobation. There can be no doubt that Paul would have related these ideas (of Romans 10) directly to Israelites when he preached in the synagogues.

 

[janxharris]

That Paul tells unsaved Israelites that faith is, 'not too difficult or beyond your reach' (by quoting Deuteronomy 30) is, in itself, a refutation of Calvinism's election/reprobation. It's simply untenable.

And it's not found in scripture.

 

[Hammster]

In what way does it contradict? All you've given is an opinion.

If you actually engage with what I wrote I will respond.


So far all you've written is opinion. You have not given a reason why.

 

[janxharris]

If you actually engage with what I wrote I will respond.


So far all you've written is opinion. You have not given a reason why.

Paul makes it apparent that, with regard to his unsaved kinsman, faith is not too difficult or beyond their reach - sentiments that are fatal to your theology. You cannot deny that Paul is discussing the unsaved here. Paul's words shed light on what he meant in the previous chapter.

 

[Hammster]

Paul makes it apparent that, with regard to his unsaved kinsman, faith is not too difficult or beyond their reach - sentiments that are fatal to your theology. You cannot deny that Paul is discussing the unsaved here. Paul's words shed light on what he meant in the previous chapter.

Why are these sentiments fatal to my theology?

 

[janxharris]

Why are these sentiments fatal to my theology?

Because, for you, faith must be preceded by regeneration which only occurs for the elect. Paul does not describe faith for the unsaved in such a way - it's not only exercisable, it's not even too difficult.

 

[Hammster]

Because, for you, faith must be preceded by regeneration which only occurs for the elect. Paul does not describe faith for the unsaved in such a way - it's not only exercisable, it's not even too difficult.

Faith in Christ will be preceded by regeneration because man, in his natural state, will not believe. It's not that he cannot. But he will not.

Could the unregenerate believe the truth of the gospel? My answer is, why would he? What would make him believe something that he thinks is false? Not only can you not will yourself to believe something that you think is false, you'd be crazy to do so. So something must change in a man before he will believe. But that doesn't change the fact that the truth is right there, ready to be grasped.

 

[janxharris]

Faith in Christ will be preceded by regeneration because man, in his natural state, will not believe. It's not that he cannot. But he will not.

Could the unregenerate believe the truth of the gospel? My answer is, why would he? What would make him believe something that he thinks is false? Not only can you not will yourself to believe something that you think is false, you'd be crazy to do so. So something must change in a man before he will believe. But that doesn't change the fact that the truth is right there, ready to be grasped.

The problem for you is that Paul makes it clear that faith for the unsaved is not too difficult or beyond their reach. You have just said that, 'you cannot will yourself to believe...'

You say 'cannot', Paul says otherwise. The contradiction is right there.

 

[Hammster]

The problem for you is that Paul makes it clear that faith for the unsaved is not too difficult or beyond their reach. You have just said that, 'you cannot will yourself to believe...'

You say 'cannot', Paul says otherwise. The contradiction is right there.

It's not difficult. The restriction is a moral one, not physical. You ignore the fact that you cannot will yourself to believe something that you think is false.

 

[janxharris]

It's not difficult. The restriction is a moral one, not physical. You ignore the fact that you cannot will yourself to believe something that you think is false.

Nothing in the text about such a distinction, but either way, Paul makes it clear that what's involved is not beyond their reach.

No synergist believes one can will oneself to believe either.

The contradiction is still there: Paul says they can - you say they can't.

 

[Hammster]

Nothing in the text about such a distinction, but either way, Paul makes it clear that what's involved is not beyond their reach.

No synergist believes one can will oneself to believe either.

The contradiction is still there: Paul says they can - you say they can't.

What Paul made clear was that it wasn't beyond the reach of his audience. The personal pronouns testify to this.

 

[janxharris]

What Paul made clear was that it wasn't beyond the reach of his audience. The personal pronouns testify to this.

Shame for your argument that Moses spoke these words to the Israelites.

Was Paul bothered that we might misunderstand his intentions regarding who his audience was? Paul would have realised that if we got it wrong then UE and LA would have been rubbished.

 

[Hammster]

Shame for your argument that Moses spoke these words to the Israelites.

Was Paul bothered that we might misunderstand his intentions regarding who his audience was? Paul would have realised that if we got it wrong then UE and LA would have been rubbished.

I don't know if Paul was bothered. But he is clear who his audience was.

Oh, and Moses' comments weren't universal.

 

[heymikey80]

Shame for your argument that Moses spoke these words to the Israelites.

Was Paul bothered that we might misunderstand his intentions regarding who his audience was? Paul would have realised that if we got it wrong then UE and LA would have been rubbished.

Shame? That Moses told these words to a people redeemed by God.

Moses wasn't talking about spiritual distance. He was pointing out the Law and its Giver were right there. It was distant from every other people. But not Israel. So too the gospel. There wont be distance to stop God. The word of the gospel is in reach.

But there's a problem with saying it has universal benefit: Jesus says God does not give it to everyone to come to Him, and that's why people don't believe.

"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” Jn 6:63-65

If it requires God, then even synergy would need to consider that God isn't being universal.

 

[janxharris]

I don't know if Paul was bothered. But he is clear who his audience was.

You didn't address my point. If a theology is imperilled by allowing a misinterpretation (by not guarding against it), then that theology could not have been Paul's

Oh, and Moses' comments weren't universal.

Moses words were for Israelites. Are you going to deal with this fact? You claim that Paul was not addressing Israelites, but by citing Deuteronomy 30 which is addressed to Israelites then Paul is...addressing Israelites.

 

[heymikey80]

You didn't address my point. If a theology is imperilled by allowing a misinterpretation (by not guarding against it), then that theology could not have been Paul's

Well since clearly Paul hasnt given you enough words to guard against Calvinism, then by this same reasoning your theology must not have been Paul's.

Either that or this thought process is mistaken. To me it is simply mistaken. To you, well, you can reject both your view and your opposition's on that basis. So I dont see the point.

Moses words were for Israelites. Are you going to deal with this fact? You claim that Paul was not addressing Israelites, but by citing Deuteronomy 30 which is addressed to Israelites then Paul is...addressing Israelites.

Paul already did. "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek" Rom 10:12.

Btw Paul also wasnt speaking to the Israel of nth century BC either. But Moses was.

 

[janxharris]

Shame? That Moses told these words to a people redeemed by God.

Moses spoke these words to Israelites whether they had true faith or not. The context is the blessings and the curses.

Can you clarify your point please?

Moses wasn't talking about spiritual distance. He was pointing out the Law and its Giver were right there. It was distant from every other people. But not Israel. So too the gospel. There wont be distance to stop God. The word of the gospel is in reach.

Where does it say this?

But there's a problem with saying it has universal benefit: Jesus says God does not give it to everyone to come to Him, and that's why people don't believe.

Where? I think I have already dealt with the various places Isaiah 6 comes up.

"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” Jn 6:63-65

If it requires God, then even synergy would need to consider that God isn't being universal.

You assume that God does not speak to all men.

 

[janxharris]

Well since clearly Paul hasnt given you enough words to guard against Calvinism, then by this same reasoning your theology must not have been Paul's.

Paul does guard against Calvinism - Paul's heart's desire and prayer for his kinsmen is genuine - he went out and preached in the synagogues. Verses 1ff. has Paul speaking about them.

No reason whatsoever to think that Paul would not have been pleased if such sentiments were addressed directly to them.

Paul already did. "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek" Rom 10:12.

I have not said his words were not for Gentiles as well.

Btw Paul also wasnt speaking to the Israel of nth century BC either. But Moses was.

Moses wasn't just speaking to those alive at the time. Deut. 30:1.

 

[Hammster]

You didn't address my point. If a theology is imperilled by allowing a misinterpretation (by not guarding against it), then that theology could not have been Paul's

Okay, then your theology could not be Paul's since it's based on a misinterpretation.

Moses words were for Israelites. Are you going to deal with this fact? You claim that Paul was not addressing Israelites, but by citing Deuteronomy 30 which is addressed to Israelites then Paul is...addressing Israelites.

And in Chapter 9, who did Paul say were true Israelites?