What did Paul preach to the Corinthians?

[janxharris]

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.

Which explains nothing.

If you told your unbelieving kids that Christ died for our sins then they would have understood that Christ died for all men.

It is also obvious that if an unbeliever read though the verses in question, he would certainly conclude that Christ died for him.

 

[janxharris]

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

Are you kidding?

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

11Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

 

[janxharris]

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

We know that the requirements of the law are written on the hearts of men. We also know that God can speak to men.

I note that you pick the Amorites, whom we know to be just about as evil as one can get.

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

No - it's time you start recognising the huge number of scriptures that say that we put our faith in God.

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

Not sure why you have quoted that since it clearly has it that man is responsible to exercise faith.

 

[guuila]

We know that the requirements of the law are written on the hearts of men. We also know that God can speak to men.

So you're thinking the Amorites (if saved) were saved by the law?

I note that you pick the Amorites, whom we know to be just about as evil as one can get.

They're no more evil than you are, though it's obvious by your statement you think you're better than them.

No - it's time you start recognising the huge number of scriptures that say that we put our faith in God.

Done. Your refusal to give God credit for your faith has been noted.

Not sure why you have quoted that since it clearly has it that man is responsible to exercise faith.

Because it clearly says the work of God is that you believe. I'm sorry you hate that.

 

[janxharris]

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.

It is good to see that you recognise what Paul clearly said.

The only problem with your argument is that the gospel they preached is the gospel that Jesus commissioned should be preached to all creation.

Mark 16:15,16
He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.​

The gospel was to be preached to all and sundry. It would not always be efficacious.

 

[Hammster]

Are you kidding?

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

11Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

So it doesn't say. That's what I thought.

 

[Hammster]

Which explains nothing.

If you told your unbelieving kids that Christ died for our sins then they would have understood that Christ died for all men.

It is also obvious that if an unbeliever read though the verses in question, he would certainly conclude that Christ died for him.

I should have been clearer. My kids are already believers. Just like Paul's audience.

Try again.

 

[Hammster]

Well, that was brief.

 

[guuila]

Well, that was brief.

...and fun.

 

[Jack Terrence]

It is good to see that you recognise what Paul clearly said.

The only problem with your argument is that the gospel they preached is the gospel that Jesus commissioned should be preached to all creation.

Mark 16:15,16
He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
​

The gospel was to be preached to all and sundry. It would not always be efficacious.

Jesus did NOT mean that the gospel was to be preached to every individual. You can argue this until the cows come home but you can't prove it. He told His disciples to "go not into the way of the Gentiles." The term "pasa ktisis" (all creation) does NOT mean every individual.

1. Paul told the Colossians that the gospel had been preached to "every creature (pasa ktisis) under heaven." He did NOT mean that the gospel had been preached to every individual. Such a conclusion is absurd. The term "pasa ktisis" in the Great Commission and by Paul mean the exact same thing.

2. John saw "every creature (pas ktisis) in heaven and in earth" worship the Lamb (Rev. 5). So using your logic we must conclude that no man will be damned. Thus the expression "every creature" (pasa ktisis) does NOT mean every individual man.

You did not deal with my point about Paul's authority as an apostle and a prophet to remit or to not remit sins, and to know beforehand who would listen. If it was given to him to know beforehand that the Corinthians would listen and be saved, then when he preached to them he could say to them before they had actually come to faith in Christ that He died for their sins.

I cannot imagine Paul telling those whose sins he chose to not remit that Christ died for them. This makes no sense at all.

 

[SwordFall]

Protestant vs protestant. That's something you don't see too often. Fire away

It would actually be very edifying, I'm not trying to antagonize or anything. Jus for the record.

 

[Hammster]

Protestant vs protestant. That's something you don't see too often. Fire away

It would actually be very edifying, I'm not trying to antagonize or anything. Jus for the record.

It's the majority in this sub-forum.

 

[Epiphoskei]

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?

Starting from the beginning,

Christ's death is indeed the sine qua non of salvation, but you could also just as easily leave "the sine qua non of" out of the equation. Christ's death is salvation, and I assert that Christ did not save all, nor did he do anything in his death other than save.

As to how what you wrote was a rebuttal to my invocation of justice, I have no idea.

Concerning the second part, the reprobate and the elect are both sinners, murderers and idolaters, thieves, liars, haters of all that is good and of righteousness and of God himself. This fact in and of itself is sufficient to make their damnation just regardless of anything else.

Now let's assume that God takes some of the people who deserve to die and pardons them. What you would have me believe is that now, as far as the other part are concerned, all of their sin doesn't matter anymore. You expunge them of all their guilt and reduce the justice of their damnation and their responsibility for their damnation to whether or not they have an equal shot at not being damned.

I suppose, in a sense, they had a shot at not being damned - they could have just been innocent all their lives. They didn't. No man ever has. No man ever could (save Christ) within orthodox Christian doctrine. And within orthodox Christian doctrine no man is with excuse. As such, with every man being born into the world a justly damned sinner, to say that any man has ever received an unfair shake is to accuse God of being an unrighteous judge.

Hence, if damnation be justice mercy may choose its own object.

 

[Johnnz]

Christ's death is indeed the sine qua non of salvation, but you could also just as easily leave "the sine qua non of" out of the equation. Christ's death is salvation, and I assert that Christ did not save all, nor did he do anything in his death other than save.

Far more than that. It was the triumph over death, the inauguration of a new age, all of history divided into two sections, the beginning of the full restoration of Eden and more, adoption into the very family of God.

John
NZ

 

[janxharris]

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

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.

Christ died for our sins - that is all men without exception and all their sins. It is as though God, knowing that we are terminally ill, arranges and pays for a trip to the hospital for us so we may receive the treatment we need for eternal life. The problem is that the door to the hospital will only open if we say 'Jesus is Lord' and believe sincerely that He rose from the dead.

Regarding the sin of unbelief - Dave Hunt suggests that this equates to the unforgivable sin of blaspheming the Holy spirit. He may be right.

 

[janxharris]

So you're thinking the Amorites (if saved) were saved by the law?

No.

They're no more evil than you are, though it's obvious by your statement you think you're better than them.

I concede you are right to say that we are all evil. I don't think I am better.

Done. Your refusal to give God credit for your faith has been noted.

If God implants faith in us then why is God pleased when it occurs? I don't see faith as a work as you do. It is an admission of failure on our part. It is an admission that we can't do it on our own.

Because it clearly says the work of God is that you believe. I'm sorry you hate that.

John 6:26-29
Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.” Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

Jesus is telling them not to consider Him as a meal ticket, but, rather, as spiritual food that gives eternal life. They ask him, 'What must WE do to do the works God requires?' He tells them. If God believes for us then we are empty vessels.

 

[janxharris]

So it doesn't say. That's what I thought.

1 Corinthians 2:1-4
And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.

Why would Paul preach to the converted? Paul says in verse 11 (Chapter 15):

Whether, then, it is I or they (the apostles), this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

If it was not Paul that converted them, then it was someone else - and Paul says that, 'this is what WE preach'. They all preached the same gospel. It was THIS gospel that they (the Corinthians) believed.

Paul's recapitulation of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15 is consistent with what he knew about them - for there was sexual immorality, irreverence of the Lord's Supper and a denial of the resurrection of the dead. He even speculates that some might not be true believers. Restating the gospel was beneficial under the circumstances.

 

[janxharris]

I should have been clearer. My kids are already believers. Just like Paul's audience.

Try again.

The gospel that Paul preached was to be proclaimed to all of creation. That includes those that will not believe.

Mark 16:15,16
He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

 

[janxharris]

Jesus did NOT mean that the gospel was to be preached to every individual. You can argue this until the cows come home but you can't prove it. He told His disciples to "go not into the way of the Gentiles." The term "pasa ktisis" (all creation) does NOT mean every individual.

1. Paul told the Colossians that the gospel had been preached to "every creature (pasa ktisis) under heaven." He did NOT mean that the gospel had been preached to every individual. Such a conclusion is absurd. The term "pasa ktisis" in the Great Commission and by Paul mean the exact same thing.

2. John saw "every creature (pas ktisis) in heaven and in earth" worship the Lamb (Rev. 5). So using your logic we must conclude that no man will be damned. Thus the expression "every creature" (pasa ktisis) does NOT mean every individual man.

You did not deal with my point about Paul's authority as an apostle and a prophet to remit or to not remit sins, and to know beforehand who would listen. If it was given to him to know beforehand that the Corinthians would listen and be saved, then when he preached to them he could say to them before they had actually come to faith in Christ that He died for their sins.

I cannot imagine Paul telling those whose sins he chose to not remit that Christ died for them. This makes no sense at all.

Sorry, I have no time to respond in full right now - but, for the moment, isn't your argument academic if it is the case that those the gospel was to be preached to included those who will not believe? Your argument rests on the preacher only declaring the gospel to those he knows will listen.

Mark 16:15,16
He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

You cannot argue that 'whoever does not believe' were not present to hear the gospel otherwise they cannot be said to be rejecting it.

 

[janxharris]

Starting from the beginning,

Christ's death is indeed the sine qua non of salvation, but you could also just as easily leave "the sine qua non of" out of the equation. Christ's death is salvation, and I assert that Christ did not save all, nor did he do anything in his death other than save.

As to how what you wrote was a rebuttal to my invocation of justice, I have no idea.

Concerning the second part, the reprobate and the elect are both sinners, murderers and idolaters, thieves, liars, haters of all that is good and of righteousness and of God himself. This fact in and of itself is sufficient to make their damnation just regardless of anything else.

Now let's assume that God takes some of the people who deserve to die and pardons them. What you would have me believe is that now, as far as the other part are concerned, all of their sin doesn't matter anymore. You expunge them of all their guilt and reduce the justice of their damnation and their responsibility for their damnation to whether or not they have an equal shot at not being damned.

I suppose, in a sense, they had a shot at not being damned - they could have just been innocent all their lives. They didn't. No man ever has. No man ever could (save Christ) within orthodox Christian doctrine. And within orthodox Christian doctrine no man is with excuse. As such, with every man being born into the world a justly damned sinner, to say that any man has ever received an unfair shake is to accuse God of being an unrighteous judge.

Hence, if damnation be justice mercy may choose its own object.

Apologies, but I have no time to reply in full.

I suppose, in a sense, they had a shot at not being damned - they could have just been innocent all their lives.

Yet you admit that 'no man ever could'. As Paul says:

Galatians 3:11
Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.”

If Christ did not die for you then, even though, theoretically, you could put your faith in Him, He still didn't die for you. Faith in Christ is the only option but is not an option for the reprobate. Under these circumstances I would say that God would be acting against His own sense of perfect love and fairness.