• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

What did Paul preach to the Corinthians?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,404
27,057
57
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,962,858.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
1. Christ did not die for all men. Yes/no?
2. Those he did not die for, like all men, will not fulfill the law. Yes/no?
3. The only option for reprobates is faith in a Christ. Yes/no?
4. Whether faith in Christ for reprobates is possible or not is an academic exercise - Christ did not die for them. Yes/no?
5. The reprobates are without access to salvation. Yes/no?

I'll try again... What do you mean by access?
 
Upvote 0

janxharris

Veteran
Jun 10, 2010
7,562
55
Essex, UK
Visit site
✟43,897.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
I'll try again... What do you mean by access?

Not sure I can explain it any better. The 5 points should cover it.

Describe the way in which a reprobate gets saved. If you can't do so, then reprobates have no access. If you can, then...well, you would have to change your theology.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,404
27,057
57
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,962,858.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Not sure I can explain it any better. The 5 points should cover it.

Describe the way in which a reprobate gets saved. If you can't do so, then reprobates have no access. If you can, then...well, you would have to change your theology.

I'll try it this way. In my theology, those whom God knows won't be saved, won't be saved. How is that different than in your theology?
 
Upvote 0

janxharris

Veteran
Jun 10, 2010
7,562
55
Essex, UK
Visit site
✟43,897.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
I'll try it this way. In my theology, those whom God knows won't be saved, won't be saved. How is that different than in your theology?

I would say that your theology, as stated and defined...'those whom God knows won't be saved'...is not strictly the orthodox position for Calvinists. The following would be representative I would think. That it is the case that the reprobates have no access is obvious.

It thus appears that it is highly important for us to have clear and scriptural views of the "foreknowledge" of God. Erroneous conceptions about it lead inevitably to thoughts most dishonoring to Him. The popular idea of Divine foreknowledge is altogether inadequate. God not only knew the end from the beginning, but He planned, fixed, predestinated everything from the beginning. And, as cause stands to effect, so God’s purpose is the ground of His prescience. If then the reader be a real Christian, he is so because God chose him in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4), and chose not because He foresaw you would believe, but chose simply because it pleased Him to choose: chose you notwithstanding your natural unbelief. (A.W. Pink, The Attributes of God, Chapter 4 'The Foreknowledge of God')
 
Upvote 0

janxharris

Veteran
Jun 10, 2010
7,562
55
Essex, UK
Visit site
✟43,897.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
I'll try it this way. In my theology, those whom God knows won't be saved, won't be saved. How is that different than in your theology?

I don't see any clear difference other than:

Those whom God knows won't believe, won't be saved.

won't be saved (i.e. the first occurrence) possibly allows for predestination.
 
Upvote 0

janxharris

Veteran
Jun 10, 2010
7,562
55
Essex, UK
Visit site
✟43,897.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married


Corinthians gives me a pretty good idea. Jus' sayin :cool:

Did Paul, when he initially preached to the Corinthians, say that Christ died for the sins of all those unbelievers he was addressing, and indeed, all the sins of all men?

Calvinists (five-pointers) do not believe that Christ died for all men.
 
Upvote 0

janxharris

Veteran
Jun 10, 2010
7,562
55
Essex, UK
Visit site
✟43,897.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Justify this claim.

Paul reminds them of what he had preached to them. If it is the case that Paul did not consider that Christ died for all men, then it would have been misleading to use the words he did in his letter: 'Christ died for our sins'. Don't forget that he allows for the possibility that some who read his letter might not be true believers.

A direct quotation uses the form "A said 'X.'" An indirect quotation uses the form "A said that X." You're writing "A said that 'X,'" which is not a legitimate way of rendering quotation. If Paul said to the Corinthians that Paul said "Christ died for our sins," an inclusive "our" would indeed be understood as you would have us understand this passage. If, rather, Paul said that Paul said that Christ died for our sins, the inclusive "our" is only inclusive of Paul and the Corinthian church. An "our" which is inclusive of the audience is only inclusive of the actual audience of the statement it presently occurs in, which in this case is the Corinthian church. It isn't inclusive of other audiences of earlier statements which are being indirectly quoted within the present statement.

Hence, when I say to my wife "I told your sister that our children are at school," even though "our" is contextually inclusive, it is only inclusive of my wife. She is the only second person in the statement which I am presently making, and her sister is the third person, and thus not included in my inclusive "our," even though her sister was the second person of the previous statement which I am indirectly quoting.

You make valid points about direct and indirect quotations. However, in your example, it is obvious that he never meant to include his sister when he first said 'our'. You understand the detail and nuances very well indeed, but aren't you missing the bigger contextual picture? Paul simply allows for the assumption that he did not exclude any man from the benefits of Christ's death. To do so, when the reality was not so would be reprehensible. Indeed, it would make the inspirational guidance of 2 Timothy 3:16 seem pretty sloppy.
 
Upvote 0

Epiphoskei

Senior Veteran
Jul 7, 2007
6,854
689
✟33,057.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Paul reminds them of what he had preached to them. If it is the case that Paul did not consider that Christ died for all men, then it would have been misleading to use the words he did in his letter: 'Christ died for our sins'. Don't forget that he allows for the possibility that some who read his letter might not be true believers.
Paul may have allowed for that possibility, but that doesn't mean he addressed the letter to these people. "Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes, To the church of God in Corinth" are how the book begins.

In any event, you still need to justify why it would be misleading for Paul to write in the manner I suggest he did. Indo-European languages don't mark clusivity one way or another, so there isn't a default inclusivity inherent in the use of the word which can be assumed until explicitly contradicted by the text. Clusivity is signified in context, which we don't have for the original message being recalled in this passage. We can't even be sure Paul used the words "Christ died for our sins" at any point in that message. We only know that the word "our" occurred in his letter to the Corinthians, and contextually the only parties mentioned in the book who could be antecedent to "our" are Paul and the church of God in Corinth.



You make valid points about direct and indirect quotations. However, in your example, it is obvious that he never meant to include his sister when he first said 'our'. You understand the detail and nuances very well indeed, but aren't you missing the bigger contextual picture? Paul simply allows for the assumption that he did not exclude any man from the benefits of Christ's death. To do so, when the reality was not so would be reprehensible. Indeed, it would make the inspirational guidance of 2 Timothy 3:16 seem pretty sloppy.

I think I've made the case above that nothing in the text suggests we can make that assumption. However, it is basic to Christian doctrine that there is a group of people excluded from the benefits of Christ's death, namely, the group of people who will not ultimately be saved. That theological context, instead of textual context, allows me to assume that Paul did not include the damned among those redeemed in Christ's death. Likewise, it sounds as if it is your commitment to the notion that Christ's death was provisional which you are using to determine the clusivity of the pronoun, and not anything in the passage itself.
 
Upvote 0

janxharris

Veteran
Jun 10, 2010
7,562
55
Essex, UK
Visit site
✟43,897.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Paul may have allowed for that possibility, but that doesn't mean he addressed the letter to these people. "Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes, To the church of God in Corinth" are how the book begins.

Even so, Paul acknowledges the fact that we should not assume that all those in a church are true believers.

In any event, you still need to justify why it would be misleading for Paul to write in the manner I suggest he did. Indo-European languages don't mark clusivity one way or another, so there isn't a default inclusivity inherent in the use of the word which can be assumed until explicitly contradicted by the text.

On the contrary, you have to explain why Paul has not been careful to explicitly distinguished those to whom the benefits of Christs death apply if, as is suggested by you, that that is indeed the case. How could something so critically important as this supposed doctrine not be addressed when Paul actually talks about Christ's death and it's relation to men?

There isn't a default exclusivity either.

Clusivity is signified in context, which we don't have for the original message being recalled in this passage. We can't even be sure Paul used the words "Christ died for our sins" at any point in that message. We only know that the word "our" occurred in his letter to the Corinthians, and contextually the only parties mentioned in the book who could be antecedent to "our" are Paul and the church of God in Corinth.

The plain reading of the text in 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 would be an assumption that Paul included all men in the benefits of Christ's death when he originally preached to them. Only an acceptance of the doctrine of limited atonement would lead to a different understanding. Nowhere in scripture does it say that Christ died only for the elect.

I think I've made the case above that nothing in the text suggests we can make that assumption. However, it is basic to Christian doctrine that there is a group of people excluded from the benefits of Christ's death, namely, the group of people who will not ultimately be saved. That theological context, instead of textual context, allows me to assume that Paul did not include the damned among those redeemed in Christ's death. Likewise, it sounds as if it is your commitment to the notion that Christ's death was provisional which you are using to determine the clusivity of the pronoun, and not anything in the passage itself.

Except that scripture explicitly says that Christ died for all. You cannot describe God's provision as good news if it is not accessible to all men. It cannot be described as good news if it was decided that janxharris would have no access. It cannot be described as good news if it was decided that Epiphoskei would have no access.

You seem to be forgetting that your doctrine has God picking out who the elect will be without any consideration of foreseen faith.
 
Upvote 0

janxharris

Veteran
Jun 10, 2010
7,562
55
Essex, UK
Visit site
✟43,897.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
I'll try it this way. In my theology, those whom God knows won't be saved, won't be saved. How is that different than in your theology?

If you change the first occurrence of 'won't be saved' to 'won't believe', then our positions are identical.

I'm not sure that you are following the theology you say you espouse. Not sure you would agree with A. W. Pink regarding salvation. If you don't agree with him, then good for you.

I think you are wavering over the doctrine of election and reprobation. Are you?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,404
27,057
57
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,962,858.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
If you change the first occurrence of 'won't be saved' to 'won't believe', then our positions are identical.

I'm not sure that you are following the theology you say you espouse. Not sure you would agree with A. W. Pink regarding salvation. If you don't agree with him, then good for you.

I think you are wavering over the doctrine of election and reprobation. Are you?

I'm not wavering at all. The problem here is that we are talking abut what Paul said in a snippet, and you are not taking what I say at face value. The thread was started to discuss atonement, yet that's not where we are. You and Oz introduced election and reprobation.

This tends to happen a lot. If I give a straight forward answer on atonement, and it doesn't cover every aspect of soteriology, then all of the sudden I'm wavering. It's like Oz calling one of my responses a red herring when, in fact, it was his question that was a red herring.

I'd suggest just having a discussion without trying to find a death blow against Calvinism.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,404
27,057
57
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,962,858.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Now, as to access.

I do not have a desire to go inside Buckingham Palace, or Windsor Castle. Does that mean that I don't have access? No. I will never be denied access to those places because I do not even wish to go inside.

Don't take this analogy further than intended. I only want to demonstrate that access isn't denied to someone who doesn't want to even get in. So to say that access is denied the reprobate who has no desire for God is a false dilemma.
 
Upvote 0

janxharris

Veteran
Jun 10, 2010
7,562
55
Essex, UK
Visit site
✟43,897.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Now, as to access.

I do not have a desire to go inside Buckingham Palace, or Windsor Castle. Does that mean that I don't have access? No. I will never be denied access to those places because I do not even wish to go inside.

Don't take this analogy further than intended. I only want to demonstrate that access isn't denied to someone who doesn't want to even get in. So to say that access is denied the reprobate who has no desire for God is a false dilemma.

I would just be repeating myself if I were to respond.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,404
27,057
57
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,962,858.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
There wouldn't be a difference. I would be repeating myself.

Fair enough. But when you say access to salvation, and I respond that those who want access will get it, and the rest don't care, just think of my analogy.
 
Upvote 0

janxharris

Veteran
Jun 10, 2010
7,562
55
Essex, UK
Visit site
✟43,897.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Fair enough. But when you say access to salvation, and I respond that those who want access will get it, and the rest don't care, just think of my analogy.

I have no idea why you would think that the analogy explains the issue.

It has already been established that reprobates have zero access to salvation. You just balk at the implications of your own theology. You keep trying to put the blame on men when we all know that Pink's words reflect the true position.
God not only knew the end from the beginning, but He planned, fixed, predestinated everything from the beginning. And, as cause stands to effect, so God’s purpose is the ground of His prescience. If then the reader be a real Christian, he is so because God chose him in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4), and chose not because He foresaw you would believe, but chose simply because it pleased Him to choose: chose you notwithstanding your natural unbelief.​
I would aver that such a view is tantamount to blasphemy.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.