What did Paul preach to the Corinthians?

[Hammster]

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.

Why would Paul preach to the converted? Well, every Sunday my pastors preach the gospel to the converted. All of Paul's letters are him preaching the gospel to the converted. I guess you think the gospel is only good for "getting them saved". That's a very shallow view if the gospel.

And you've yet to support your view that he speculates that some were not saved. While it may be true, it's obvious from chapter 1 that they were not his audience.

 

[Hammster]

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.

So you are just ignoring my argument and reasserting your position? Okay then.

 

[guuila]

No.

Okay. So how were the Amorites to be saved?

If God implants faith in us then why is God pleased when it occurs?

Does your theology not have any room for God to be pleased with his own work? Did God not say "Let there be light" and then observe that it was good? Do you think its goodness came about by any means other than God himself?

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.

An admission is still an action you do. If it's not the work of God, its your own contribution to salvation. There's no way around it.

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.

Nobody ever said "God believes for us." This is typical straw man argumentation from synergists. God's grace is the causal agent behind our faith. There is a difference. But for some reason you'd rather YOU be the causal agent behind your faith, not God's grace. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

 

[Epiphoskei]

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.

Faith is an option for the reprobate. It's an option they don't want to take.

You end a lot of your conclusions with "I would say that this is bad" or "I would call this disingenuous" or "I am disgusted by this" without actually justifying those statements.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

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.

You aren't really explaining what you believe. You say: "Christ died for all men [without exception] and all their sins". In what sense are you saying "for"? You then bring up a theoretical situation, similar to the typical debt/check scenario where the debt is all paid for by Christ, you just have to grab the check and take it to the bank. I understand this to mean that you believe only that Christ's death is sufficient to atone and has the potential to atone, but does not actually atone until one believes, just as He has not technically accomplished the paying off of debt in the check/debt scheme since He never takes it to the bank and actually pays it off. Therefore, in your scheme, Jesus as the Great High Priest does not present His atonement on one's behalf until they profess Him as Savior. This actually means that Christ only accomplished the potential to atone for sin on the cross, which actually says that Christ technically didn't die for anyone. He died as a sacrifice for sin [in general], made His atonement available to all which must be partaken of by faith; then [and only then] is any actual atonement made for sin, which means that in the end, you technically hold to a lesser form of limited atonement, since Jesus only actually makes atonement for the elect.

Feel free to correct anywhere I may have misrepresented you, as I wish to interact with what you have presented accurately and fairly.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Your argument rests on the preacher only declaring the gospel to those he knows will listen.

You are not listening to me. I said that Paul when preaching the gospel to the Corinthians knew that they would listen. Thus he could tell them that Christ died for their sins before they had actually come to faith in Christ. Yet on another occasion he preached the gospel to a Jewish crowd not having been given to know who would listen. So he adjusted his message by saying that the remission of sins and the promises were for the children of the patriarchs (Acts 10:33).

Paul NEVER presumed that all Jews were the children of the patriarchs. Jesus told certain Jews UNAMBIGUOUSLY that they were NOT the children of Abraham (John 8). So those in Paul's audience who knew they were not the children of the patriarchs would not have concluded that Paul was saying that Christ was for them. Christ died ONLY for the children of the patriarchs.

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.

First, I have already proven that the term "every creature" (pasa ktisis) does NOT mean every individual. Second, I do not accept Mark 16:9-20 as canonical. It is not found in the early and more reliable manuscripts. Third, see my argument above.

 

[Epiphoskei]

You aren't really explaining what you believe. You say: "Christ died for all men [without exception] and all their sins". In what sense are you saying "for"? You then bring up a theoretical situation, similar to the typical debt/check scenario where the debt is all paid for by Christ, you just have to grab the check and take it to the bank. I understand this to mean that you believe only that Christ's death is sufficient to atone and has the potential to atone, but does not actually atone until one believes, just as He has not technically accomplished the paying off of debt in the check/debt scheme since He never takes it to the bank and actually pays it off. Therefore, in your scheme, Jesus as the Great High Priest does not present His atonement on one's behalf until they profess Him as Savior. This actually means that Christ only accomplished the potential to atone for sin on the cross, which actually says that Christ technically didn't die for anyone. He died as a sacrifice for sin [in general], made His atonement available to all which must be partaken of by faith; then [and only then] is any actual atonement made for sin, which means that in the end, you technically hold to a lesser form of limited atonement, since Jesus only actually makes atonement for the elect.

Feel free to correct anywhere I may have misrepresented you, as I wish to interact with what you have presented accurately and fairly.

I will guess the response will be something along the lines of objecting that atonement is that potentiality itself, not the thing which is potential.

 

[Hammster]

I will guess the response will be something along the lines of objecting that atonement is that potentiality itself, not the thing which is potential.

Even though Christ's atonement is foreshadowed by the Day of Atonement, the synergist's view of Christ's atonement look very different.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Shh. That's Old Testament. Totally irrelevant. Who'd want to look there for his theology?

 

[Hammster]

I peek in every now and again just to see what's going on.

 

[janxharris]

Why would Paul preach to the converted? Well, every Sunday my pastors preach the gospel to the converted. All of Paul's letters are him preaching the gospel to the converted. I guess you think the gospel is only good for "getting them saved". That's a very shallow view if the gospel.

So the gospel is modified if unbelievers are known to be present? Paul writes that 'this is what we preach'; he doesn't specify a gospel for believers and a gospel for unbelievers.

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

There is only one gospel and the Corinthians believed it. You seem to disagree.

And you've yet to support your view that he speculates that some were not saved. While it may be true, it's obvious from chapter 1 that they were not his audience.

Just read the first few verses of chapter 15.

 

[janxharris]

So you are just ignoring my argument and reasserting your position? Okay then.

Do you preach the same gospel as Saint Paul, Hammster?

 

[Hammster]

So the gospel is modified if unbelievers are known to be present? Paul writes that 'this is what we preach'; he doesn't specify a gospel for believers and a gospel for unbelievers.

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

There is only one gospel and the Corinthians believed it. You seem to disagree.



Just read the first few verses of chapter 15.

Again, your assumption that his using past tense means that it's what he preached before they were saved. However, he doesn't say that. He just says that he and others preached the gospel to them. His intended audience is identified in chapter 1.

 

[Hammster]

Do you preach the same gospel as Saint Paul, Hammster?

Okay. Ignore the argument.

 

[janxharris]

Again, your assumption that his using past tense means that it's what he preached before they were saved. However, he doesn't say that. He just says that he and others preached the gospel to them. His intended audience is identified in chapter 1.

Two gospels then?

 

[janxharris]

Okay. Ignore the argument.

I see you did not answer my question.

 

[janxharris]

Again, your assumption that his using past tense means that it's what he preached before they were saved. However, he doesn't say that. He just says that he and others preached the gospel to them. His intended audience is identified in chapter 1.

I assume nothing Hammster. Paul says, '...this is what we preach...'
That is present tense...and it is the same gospel as was previously preached.
It is clear that you assume he modifies this gospel if an unbeliever is known to be present.

What is your evidence?

 

[janxharris]

So if Paul believed that Christ did not die for all men, why did he fail to specify that the words, 'Christ died for our sins', were never to be spoken when unbelievers where present?

 

[Hammster]

Two gospels then?

Not a at all. I've never even hinterland at that.

 

[janxharris]

You are not listening to me. I said that Paul when preaching the gospel to the Corinthians knew that they would listen. Thus he could tell them that Christ died for their sins before they had actually come to faith in Christ. Yet on another occasion he preached the gospel to a Jewish crowd not having been given to know who would listen. So he adjusted his message by saying that the remission of sins and the promises were for the children of the patriarchs (Acts 10:33).

Paul NEVER presumed that all Jews were the children of the patriarchs. Jesus told certain Jews UNAMBIGUOUSLY that they were NOT the children of Abraham (John 8). So those in Paul's audience who knew they were not the children of the patriarchs would not have concluded that Paul was saying that Christ was for them. Christ died ONLY for the children of the patriarchs.

First, I have already proven that the term "every creature" (pasa ktisis) does NOT mean every individual. Second, I do not accept Mark 16:9-20 as canonical. It is not found in the early and more reliable manuscripts. Third, see my argument above.

If you don't accept Mark 16:9-20 as canonical then I don't see any point in debating with you.