What did Paul preach to the Corinthians?

[janxharris]

We haven't established anything of the kind. You've been challenged on a half dozen priors necessary to make your case and you haven't even tried to back them up. You just declare them to be fact. This is Arminian methodology in a nutshell. Fill a bag full of priors which Arminianism will logically follow from. Smuggle it into debates. Construct Arminianism out of facts not in evidence. Refuse to allow the conversation to refocus around whether these priors are valid. This isn't persuasive.

I won't respond to this.

I fail to see where "Jesus rose from the dead" contains a pronoun with a disputable antecedent.

It is part of the gospel. Why tell non-believers Christ rose from the dead if he did not necessarily die for them?

Christ has ransomed Israel. Have faith and you will be grafted in.

You will answer back to me that this isn't good news for those not gifted with the grace to stop hating God. I reply that a man's hatred of God is not my problem, not God's problem, and not the Gospel's problem. It's his problem. Exclusively.

And you hated God too. You're attempt to maintain a reprobates responsibility in refusing the gospel is a fail. It is illogical and all Calvinists know it.

 

[janxharris]

How were the Amorites given access to salvation when they were left in darkness and ignorance, having absolutely no idea about the coming messiah?

When was the last time you spoke to all the Amorites?

Yes. And if God never sent Jesus, he'd still be love. Agree?

Yes.

 

[Epiphoskei]

You've been challenged on a half dozen priors necessary to make your case and you haven't even tried to back them up. You just declare them to be fact. This is Arminian methodology in a nutshell. Fill a bag full of priors which Arminianism will logically follow from. Smuggle it into debates. Construct Arminianism out of facts not in evidence. Refuse to allow the conversation to refocus around whether these priors are valid. This isn't persuasive.

I won't respond to this.

Case in point.

It is part of the gospel. Why tell non-believers Christ rose from the dead if he did not necessarily die for them?

Because it happened.

And you hated God too.

And I received grace.

You're attempt to maintain a reprobates responsibility in refusing the gospel is a fail. It is illogical and all Calvinists know it.

You haven't justified this statement.

 

[guuila]

When was the last time you spoke to all the Amorites?

Why are you dodging my question? Were the Amorites sent a prophet? How did they know about the coming Messiah?

Yes.

So then how is God not love by sending Jesus to infallibly save billions and billions of people He chose before the foundation of the world?

 

[janxharris]

Because it happened.

It is not good news for those that God eternally damned is it?

And I received grace.

Shame about those that God eternally damned.

You haven't justified this statement.

Rather, you have not refuted it. We all know that Calvinism has no answer to this. It is freely admitted.

 

[guuila]

Shame about those that God eternally damned.

This is your fundamental problem. I've said it many times - until you drop the notion that God owes people a chance at salvation, you will always find the idea of unconditional election a disgusting thing.

I know myself well enough to know that God didn't choose me because he knew I'd believe. Rather, God chose me because he knew I wouldn't believe. You keep trying to convince us God chose you because he knew you'd do this good thing (having faith in Jesus is good, right?) yet, I believe God chose me because he knew if he didn't, I'd never believe in Jesus. It seems you're a better man than I, Janx.

 

[Epiphoskei]

It is not good news for those that God eternally damned is it?

I don't see an endgame for you on this one which doesn't involve universalism. There are people in hell. Is the death of Christ good news for them or not? I say yes. I don't see how you can say no without either denying that there are inhabitants of hell, or without you being the one who denies that the resurrection of Christ is good news for all men.

Shame about those that God eternally damned.

I am unsettled at the fact that you would call justice a shame. You seem to be trying to transpose a sympathy which you feel I would have towards myself if I were still justly condemned onto the rest of the justly condemned. If I had any such sympathy for my sinful self I would be blaspheming God by denying that his treatment of me was righteous.

Rather, you have not refuted it. We all know that Calvinism has no answer to this. It is freely admitted.

How can I refute an assertion without an argument?

 

[Skala]

I believe what John 10 says. We have done that chapter to death.

Paul preached the good news - he told non-believers this good news - Christ died for our sins.

So you believe that John 10 says that Christ died for his sheep, and that not all people are His sheep?

Coulda fooled me.

 

[Jack Terrence]

There are people in hell. Is the death of Christ good news for them or not? I say yes.

 

[Epiphoskei]

I was trying for brevity, but I suppose I should flesh out this point. The gospel can't be soteriologically a source of hope for those who all but the universalist admit are beyond hope. But the statement that Christ is risen is objectively good in and of itself. Janx is downplaying the objective goodness of the message of the Gospel in order to create a problem for those who don't hold that the Gospel rests upon a universal, provisional atonement. Strangely, he's doing this by appealing to the case of the damned. Because the Gospel is objectively good news, I say it's good news for them too. But if he denies that I can assert this so as to imply that I have an insufficiently good good news, and yet he repeats his previous claim that the gospel is good news for everyone, he has inadvertently asserted that there are no damned.

 

[OzSpen]

I wasn't flaming. I mentioned you in a statement, and not in an insulting way. And it wasn't anything which we hadn't already discussed.

But you are free to report me if you disagree.

When you talk about me to somebody else and not to me, you are using the technique of 'piling on'. A moderation on this forum has advised me that piling on is considered flaming on CF and borders on being disruptive.

Talking about my mistakes (in your view) to another person makes me the subject of the post and you are not dealing with the topic of the thread.

That's why it is flaming. Would you please stop piling on in your treatment of me?

Oz

 

[Hammster]

When you talk about me to somebody else and not to me, you are using the technique of 'piling on'. A moderation on this forum has advised me that piling on is considered flaming on CF and borders on being disruptive.

Talking about my mistakes (in your view) to another person makes me the subject of the post and you are not dealing with the topic of the thread.

That's why it is flaming. Would you please stop piling on in your treatment of me?

Oz

You weren't the subject of the post. Maybe you should start a thread in Member Service Center.

 

[OzSpen]

Did the reprobate repent?

Straw man!

He was in Hades so the opportunity for repenting was over for him, but he knew what he wanted a warning to be sent to his siblings.

 

[Hammster]

Straw man!

He was in Hades so the opportunity for repenting was over for him, but he knew what he wanted a warning to be sent to his siblings.

And why would you think that a warning would work?

Or maybe I'm missing your point for bringing this up.

 

[OzSpen]

You weren't the subject of the post. Maybe you should start a thread in Member Service Center.

You were talking about me to another, janxharris, at #114 when you stated,

'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' (emphasis added).

See: http://www.christianforums.com/t7787859-12/.

It is a piling on technique and it is flaming me.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

And why would you think that a warning would work?

Or maybe I'm missing your point for bringing this up.

Straw man again. Please deal with the content of what I wrote and not what you want to say about the warning working.

Pragmatism was not on my mind when I made the post. I simply told what the reprobate rich man did from Hades. He pleaded for his 5 brothers to be warned about his anguish in Hades.

The parable was not meant to address pragmatism. Its main message was about the gulf between the saved and the damned in the intermediate state.

 

[Hammster]

Straw man again. Please deal with the content of what I wrote and not what you want to say about the warning working.

Pragmatism was not on my mind when I made the post. I simply told what the reprobate rich man did from Hades. He pleaded for his 5 brothers to be warned about his anguish in Hades.

The parable was not meant to address pragmatism. Its main message was about the gulf between the saved and the damned in the intermediate state.

Okay. Why did you bring it up? I'm still confused.

 

[OzSpen]

Okay. Why did you bring it up? I'm still confused.

If you read #197 carefully, you'd know why I brought it. I was responding to your post.

Here it is again:

Originally Posted by Hammster

Why would a reprobate care if Christ didn't die for them?
​

What did the reprobate of the rich man in Jesus' story of the rich man and Lazarus say, according to Jesus?

27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house— 28 for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’” (Luke 16:27-31 ESV, emphasis added)

​

Warn them and direct them to the Scriptures. That's what this reprobate said through Jesus' story.

Is that clear enough now?

Oz

 

[Hammster]

If you read #197 carefully, you'd know why I brought it. I was responding to your post.

Here it is again:

Originally Posted by Hammster

Why would a reprobate care if Christ didn't die for them?
​

What did the reprobate of the rich man in Jesus' story of the rich man and Lazarus say, according to Jesus?

27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house— 28 for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’” (Luke 16:27-31 ESV, emphasis added)

​

Warn them and direct them to the Scriptures. That's what this reprobate said through Jesus' story.

Is that clear enough now?

Oz

I'm sorry, but I still don't know what your point is. I thought I did, but you called it a straw man, or something. Please, just make your point.

 

[OzSpen]

I'm sorry, but I still don't know what your point is. I thought I did, but you called it a straw man, or something. Please, just make your point.

I have made the point but you don't want to receive it. I will not be repeating what I have already said and copied a second time for you.