What did Paul preach to the Corinthians?

[Hammster]

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.

Well, you weren't as clear as you thought, evidently. So, I guess I'll move along.

 

[OzSpen]

Well, you weren't as clear as you thought, evidently. So, I guess I'll move along.

It would have been encouraging to hear from you: 'Thanks Oz for raising a contrary view to the one I presented. That's evidence I'll need to factor into my final view'.

But that was not to be.

Oz

 

[guuila]

Well, that was fun.

 

[janxharris]

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.

It was never God's intention to pick and choose who would benefit from His Grace.

Faith is not a 'good' work. Indeed, faith is not work - Romans 9:30-32 and Romans 4.

 

[janxharris]

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.

I do not understand your argument and I note that you dodged what I actually said. Your theology has it that God eternally damns some men without any consideration of foreknowledge of their actions. Perhaps you disagree with Pink:

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. ('The Attributes of God by A.W. Pink, Ch. 4 'The Foreknowledge of God')​

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.

Justice? Christ's death is the sine qua non of salvation and yet you assert that He did not die for all. Have you forgotten this fact?

So the reprobate and the elect are hell-bound. God dies just for the elect and and they go to heaven. Correct? And you still dare to hold the reprobate responsible?

 

[janxharris]

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

Coulda fooled me.

No, but I accept John 10.

 

[janxharris]

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

Indeed.

 

[janxharris]

Oh.

Well, I don't like to talk about Oz, or to him for that matter, so there's no way I can be guilty of that.

Is that necessary?

 

[janxharris]

I think we can all agree that Paul reminds the Corinthians of the gospel he initially preached to them when they were unbelievers.

Verse 3-4
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,​

Now you don't remind someone of what was previously the case by referring to what is currently the case if what is currently the case was not the case previously. If you do, then you have not actually delivered a reminder.

If Paul is using what is currently (i.e. when he wrote the letter) the case - 'that Christ died for our sins' (i.e. 'our' is Paul's and believing Corinthian's sins) then it must be the case that this phrase sufficed in expressing the gospel when it was preached to them before. If not, then Paul has not actually reminded them.

Paul makes no attempt to clarify any possible misunderstanding when he says:
'For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins'

You don't say, 'For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance', and then switch to what is true now (i.e. at the time of the letter's writing) unless it applied beforehand.

I do wonder what exactly a Calvinist preacher would say to a crowd of unbelievers in view of the doctrines they hold. Taking into consideration Paul's vocabulary regarding the gospel, would the preacher (who is a Calvinist) say:

Christ died for our sins folks. Now when I say 'our' sins, I don't necessarily mean all men's sins. No, Christ only died for believer's sins. So you must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ to benefit from his grace. Now, please, don't get me wrong...please also understand that I don't necessarily say that all of you can believe. To believe in Christ, it must be the case that God chose you before the foundation of the world. If he didn't choose you, you will never believe and you will suffer in hell eternally....because God did not choose you.

This is the good news folks.​

Espousing TULIP forces the preacher to keep tripping over himself with qualifications. Without such qualifications, his preaching is disingenuous. And it is clear that he ends up delivering bad news which actually means he has not preached the gospel at all.

Would a Calvinist please give us an example of the gospel that they would preach to non-believers? Please use the various terms that Paul employs in 1 Corinthians 15 in his reminder of the gospel.

 

[janxharris]

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

No Calvinist has been able to give a good reason why we should accept anything other than the plain reading of these verses. He (Paul) is going to remind them of the gospel that he preached beforehand. He specifically identifies that what he had received in the past is what he passed on to them at that previous time. He then makes the reminder. No clarification is made because Paul accepted that Christ died for all men. If he did not accept that Christ died for all then his statements are grossly misleading.

As has been pointed out before: no scriptures say that Christ only died for the elect.

Also, as I have already pointed out, Paul states explicitly that 'this is the gospel we preach'. 'This' refers only to his previous statement:

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

If you deny that Paul used these words (amongst others) when expressing the gospel then you are denying scripture.

'This is the gospel we preach', Paul says. And he does so WITHOUT qualification. The Calvinists, as has been clearly been seen on this thread, have to jump through hoops in order to avoid that which Paul clearly and plainly taught.

 

[Jack Terrence]

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

No Calvinist has been able to give a good reason why we should accept anything other than the plain reading of these verses.

Paul said that Christ died for OUR sins. He never said that Christ died for THEIR sins. Paul distinguishes between US and THEM in all his writings.

 

[janxharris]

Paul said that Christ died for OUR sins. He never said that Christ died for THEIR sins. Paul distinguishes between US and THEM in all his writings.

Paul reminds them of what he had previously preached to them when they were unbelievers. He told them, on that previous occasion, that 'Christ died for our sins'. The audience of unbelieving Corinthians would have naturally understood that Christ had died for all their sins.

Paul also says that 'this is the gospel we preach' (v.11). You can't suddenly decide to change the words that Paul used to suit your theology.

Why are you denying the crystal clear meaning of Paul's words?

If it was an issue for Paul - if saying to unbelievers, 'Christ died for our sins' was an issue - why didn't he say so? You have provided no explanation for this simple fact.

Paul did not qualify his gospel because there was nothing to qualify.

 

[Hammster]

It would have been encouraging to hear from you: 'Thanks Oz for raising a contrary view to the one I presented. That's evidence I'll need to factor into my final view'.

But that was not to be.

Oz

It would have been nice if you would have been clearer in what your point is, even after I asked for clarification. I'll be more than shoot to factor in the alleged contrary view. I just don't know what it is.

 

[Hammster]

It was never God's intention to pick and choose who would benefit from His Grace.

Why do you say that?

 

[Hammster]

I do not understand your argument and I note that you dodged what I actually said. Your theology has it that God eternally damns some men without any consideration of foreknowledge of their actions.

Which foreknown actions of the reprobate should God consider?

 

[Hammster]

I think we can all agree that Paul reminds the Corinthians of the gospel he initially preached to them when they were unbelievers.

Verse 3-4
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,​

Now you don't remind someone of what was previously the case by referring to what is currently the case if what is currently the case was not the case previously. If you do, then you have not actually delivered a reminder.

If Paul is using what is currently (i.e. when he wrote the letter) the case - 'that Christ died for our sins' (i.e. 'our' is Paul's and believing Corinthian's sins) then it must be the case that this phrase sufficed in expressing the gospel when it was preached to them before. If not, then Paul has not actually reminded them.

Paul makes no attempt to clarify any possible misunderstanding when he says:
'For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins'

You don't say, 'For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance', and then switch to what is true now (i.e. at the time of the letter's writing) unless it applied beforehand.

I do wonder what exactly a Calvinist preacher would say to a crowd of unbelievers in view of the doctrines they hold. Taking into consideration Paul's vocabulary regarding the gospel, would the preacher (who is a Calvinist) say:

Christ died for our sins folks. Now when I say 'our' sins, I don't necessarily mean all men's sins. No, Christ only died for believer's sins. So you must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ to benefit from his grace. Now, please, don't get me wrong...please also understand that I don't necessarily say that all of you can believe. To believe in Christ, it must be the case that God chose you before the foundation of the world. If he didn't choose you, you will never believe and you will suffer in hell eternally....because God did not choose you.

This is the good news folks.​

Espousing TULIP forces the preacher to keep tripping over himself with qualifications. Without such qualifications, his preaching is disingenuous. And it is clear that he ends up delivering bad news which actually means he has not preached the gospel at all.

Would a Calvinist please give us an example of the gospel that they would preach to non-believers? Please use the various terms that Paul employs in 1 Corinthians 15 in his reminder of the gospel.

I've already done that. But according to you, if I tell my kids that I want to remind them that Christ died for our sins, that they will mistakenly think that I've changed my theology to unlimited atonement. I don't think so.

 

[Hammster]

Paul reminds them of what he had previously preached to them when they were unbelievers. He told them, on that previous occasion, that 'Christ died for our sins'. The audience of unbelieving Corinthians would have naturally understood that Christ had died for all their sins.

Where does Paul say that he preached this to them while they were unbelievers?

 

[guuila]

It was never God's intention to pick and choose who would benefit from His Grace.

Fair enough. Please explain how it is the Amorites were to know of God's salvation plan.

Faith is not a 'good' work. Indeed, faith is not work - Romans 9:30-32 and Romans 4.

Faith is a work - a work of God. It's time you start giving Him credit for it.

Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” (John 6:29 ESV)

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Two things that still have yet to be addressed after multiple tries.

Indeed, one must believe for the atonement to be applied

I think it is necessary for us to know exactly what you believe about the atonement before we continue.

You seem to be advocating an "unlimited atonement" position by continually saying that "Christ died for everyone". Yet above you say that "one must believe for the atonement to be applied". I can only understand that to mean you don't believe the atonement was universal and atoned for all sin, or at least that imputation doesn't occur until the moment of justification. It is one thing to believe it is capable, quite another to actually believe it accomplished something for all.

Can you please outline what you believe here?

So please, can you outline your belief on unlimited atonement? I find it odd that everyone is debating/arguing and yet we haven't had it made clear just as to what you are advocating.

So of course, Christ didn't die for the sin of unbelief of everyone.

^^^Maybe take this into account in your response as well.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Paul reminds them of what he had previously preached to them when they were unbelievers. He told them, on that previous occasion, that 'Christ died for our sins'. The audience of unbelieving Corinthians would have naturally understood that Christ had died for all their sins.

I can see how you can draw your conclusion. However, you overlook one very pertinent matter. The apostles were prophets and as such Jesus gave them the authority to remit sins. So Paul could say to the Corinthians before they had actually come to faith in Christ that He died for their sins.

Paul prophesied beforehand who would listen and be saved,

“Therefore I want you to know that God’s salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!” Acts 28:28 NIV

Because Paul was an apostle and a prophet, and knowing that the Corinthians would listen, he could tell them that Christ died for their sins. Those who listen are the Elect.