What did Paul preach to the Corinthians?

[Hammster]

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.

Do you believe that a natural man, apart from what Arminians refer to as prevenient grace, will ever have a desire to seek God?

 

[janxharris]

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.

Election and reprobation are doctrines that men like yourself have introduced. They are directly related to atonement because the atonement becomes limited. The good news becomes shockingly awful news. Creation becomes worthless.

You seem surprised by the strong reaction against the doctrines you espouse.
You shouldn't be - it turns life, as many of us have understood it, right on its head and back to front.

 

[janxharris]

Do you believe that a natural man, apart from what Arminians refer to as prevenient grace, will ever have a desire to seek God?

I don't know. Probably not. There has to be some kind of interaction between God and man for there to be any chance of a relationship.

 

[Hammster]

Election and reprobation are doctrines that men like yourself have introduced. They are directly related to atonement because the atonement becomes limited. The good news because shockingly awful news. Creation becomes worthless.

You seem surprised by the strong reaction against the doctrines you espouse.
You shouldn't be - it turns life, as many of us have understood it, right on its head and back to front.

So you introduce 1 Cor 15, I and others try and argue that it's not a case for unlimited atonement, so you need to bring in other issues to make your case? That doesn't track.

 

[Hammster]

I don't know. Probably not. There has to be some kind of interaction between God and man for there to be any chance of a relationship.

I love this. Basically what you're saying is that you don't know what you believe, exactly, and can't really back it up with scripture (because you don't know), but you do know Calvinism is wrong.

 

[janxharris]

So you introduce 1 Cor 15, I and others try and argue that it's not a case for unlimited atonement, so you need to bring in other issues to make your case? That doesn't track.

If we just stick with the op scripture then it is quite clear that Paul makes no distinction with regard to the benefits of Christ's death. He allows us to infer that when he originally preached to them he said, 'Christ died for our sins' or something very similar.

Why didn't Paul make sure we all understood that Christ's death did not benefit all men? Why didn't he explicitly say that God decided this before the foundation of the world. Such a critical doctrine and Paul says nothing? He lets unlimited atonement be readily discerned from his choice of words.

It just doesn't add up.

 

[janxharris]

.

 

[janxharris]

I love this. Basically what you're saying is that you don't know what you believe, exactly, and can't really back it up with scripture (because you don't know), but you do know Calvinism is wrong.

You are right, I don't know the answer to a speculative question about the non-existence of a term that is not even in scripture.

 

[Hammster]

If we just stick with the op scripture then it is quite clear that Paul makes no distinction with regard to the benefits of Christ's death. He allows us to infer that when he originally preached to them he said, 'Christ died for our sins' or something very similar.

Why didn't Paul make sure we all understood that Christ's death did not benefit all men? Why didn't he explicitly say that God decided this before the foundation of the world. Such a critical doctrine and Paul says nothing? He lets unlimited atonement be readily discerned from his choice of words.

It just doesn't add up.

Since you say that Paul made no distinction, then you are assuming your conclusion.

 

[Hammster]

You are right, I don't know the answer to a speculative question about the non-existence of a term that is not even in scripture.

You've claimed to be an Arminian. But you don't know what they believe, apparently.

And it doesn't seem that you don't have a problem with the term "unlimited atonement".

 

[janxharris]

Since you say that Paul made no distinction, then you are assuming your conclusion.

Yes. Paul makes it very easy to assume what I assume. Paul make it very difficult to assume what you assume.

 

[Hammster]

Yes. Paul makes it very easy to assume what I assume. Paul make it very difficult to assume what you assume.

No, he didn't. I had never read it the way that you and FG are espousing, even when I was a synergist. When I used to debate Calvinists on this forum, it never occurred to use the passage in the way that you are.

 

[janxharris]

No, he didn't. I had never read it the way that you and FG are espousing, even when I was a synergist. When I used to debate Calvinists on this forum, it never occurred to use the passage in the way that you are.

1Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you,

Paul is going to remind them of the gospel he preached to them.

which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance:

This gospel that I am about to remind you of saves you. Paul notes that some may not have truly believed.

that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

Paul delivers the reminder of the gospel that he preached. No hint that some of those he preached to would not benefit from Christ's death if God had so decided that they would not be elect. Note also that Paul does not even relate Christ's resurrection to anyone's benefit. When it was spoken it would have been assumed that it benefitted all - if it was received, that is.

All that Paul says correlates well with the term 'good news' or 'gospel'.

Your problem, I would say, is that your theology correlates with extremely bad news.

 

[Hammster]

1Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you,

Paul is going to remind them of the gospel he preached to them.

which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance:

This gospel that I am about to remind you of saves you. Paul notes that some may not have truly believed.

Really? Where does he say that? It looks to me like he says they've received it.

that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

Paul delivers the reminder of the gospel that he preached. No hint that some of those he preached to would not benefit from Christ's death if God had so decided that they would not be elect. Note also that Paul does not even relate Christ's resurrection to anyone's benefit. When it was spoken it would have been assumed that it benefitted all - if it was received, that is.

There's no hint because he assumes that he writing to believers. That's what happens when you write to a church.

All that Paul says correlates well with the term 'good news' or 'gospel'.

Your problem, I would say, is that your theology correlates with extremely bad news.

I know you'd say that. But you've yet to prove it.

 

[janxharris]

Really? Where does he say that? It looks to me like he says they've received it.

if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

You know with 100% certainty that the church of Corinth did not contain any that were not true Christians? Paul certainly allows for it. He certainly knew more about that church than you or I. In any case, experience tells that such is possible.

There's no hint because he assumes that he writing to believers. That's what happens when you write to a church.

He writes to remind them of what he had previously preached, which he duly does. Why did Paul tell a crowd of unbelievers that Christ rose again after three days? Did Paul say the equivalent of 'there is a plate of roast beef with all the trimmings for you on one of the planets in the andromeda galaxy. It's good and hot so go eat it now?'

The assumption is, is that what Paul preached to the Corinthians was available to them. Christ dying for their sins and Christ's resurrection was good news that Paul told them of.

 

[Hammster]

if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

You know with 100% certainty that the church of Corinth did not contain any that were not true Christians? Paul certainly allows for it. He certainly knew more about that church than you or I. In any case, experience tells that such is possible.



He writes to remind them of what he had previously preached, which he duly does. Why did Paul tell a crowd of unbelievers that Christ rose again after three days? Did Paul say the equivalent of 'there is a plate of roast beef with all the trimmings for you on one of the planets in the andromeda galaxy. It's good and hot so go eat it now?'

The assumption is, is that what Paul preached to the Corinthians was available to them. Christ dying for their sins and Christ's resurrection was good news that Paul told them of.

Thanks for noting that it's only your assumption.

There's nothing in the text that says he's writing to believers and unbelievers.

 

[janxharris]

Thanks for noting that it's only your assumption.

There's nothing in the text that says he's writing to believers and unbelievers.

And your assumption comes directly against Paul's words. I not only have heeded what Paul has insinuated but I also recognise what common sense tells us.

 

[Hammster]

And your assumption comes directly against Paul's words. I not only have heeded what Paul has insinuated but I also recognise what common sense tells us.

My assumption comes from the fact that if he was talking to believers, which it would seem that his letter indicates, then his language is normative when he says "our". He means theirs and his.

 

[janxharris]

My assumption comes from the fact that if he was talking to believers, which it would seem that his letter indicates, then his language is normative when he says "our". He means theirs and his.

And common sense tells us, as Paul rightly points out, that it is possible that some of those to whom he is writing may be Christians in name only. Notwithstanding that fact, Paul proceeds to state the gospel regardless. It is possible that Paul actually has in mind such men. Reminding the faithful of the gospel might be considered redundant by some, but it would certainly be of value to those that were yet to earnestly exercise faith.

 

[Hammster]

And common sense tells us, as Paul rightly points out, that it is possible that some of those to whom he is writing may be Christians in name only. Notwithstanding that fact, Paul proceeds to state the gospel regardless. It is possible that Paul actually has in mind such men. Reminding the faithful of the gospel might be considered redundant by some, but it would certainly be of value to those that were yet to earnestly exercise faith.

Paul doesn't "rightly point out" that some may not be saved.