What did Paul preach to the Corinthians?

[Hammster]

I see you did not answer my question.

I started the argument with a statement and a question. You've not answered my question.

 

[janxharris]

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

A modified gospel then? That is what you have implied.

 

[Hammster]

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?

I've never said he modifies. I said that while he may assume that there are unbelievers present, his message isn't to them as evidenced by his introduction in chapter 1.

 

[Hammster]

A modified gospel then? That is what you have implied.

No. One gospel.

 

[Hammster]

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?

His audience was believers. See chapter 1. If he preached the gospel frequently (I determined to know nothing among you but Christ and Him crucified), then reminding them (the believers, his audience) of what he preached.

You've not showed that when he preached to them the gospel (in the context of ch 15) that they were unbelievers.

 

[janxharris]

I've never said he modifies. I said that while he may assume that there are unbelievers present, his message isn't to them as evidenced by his introduction in chapter 1.

So when Paul preached this gospel to unbelievers - what then? What about a mixture of believers and unbelievers

 

[Hammster]

So when Paul preached this gospel to unbelievers - what then? What about a mixture of beleivers and unbelievers.

He didn't preach to unbelievers. He witnessed to them. Find in Acts where he presented the gospel in the manner that you suggest

 

[janxharris]

He didn't preach to unbelievers. He witnessed to them. Find in Acts where he presented the gospel in the manner that you suggest

Paul didn't preach to unbelievers?
Please justify that assertion. I'm frankly astonished by this.

1 Corinthians 15:11 'this is what we preach'
Sure Paul preached to unbelievers. He witnessed too.

I don't have to find what you ask for in Acts.

 

[Hammster]

Paul didn't preach to unbelievers?
Please justify that assertion. I'm frankly astonished by this.

1 Corinthians 15:11 'this is what we preach'
Sure Paul preached to unbelievers. He witnessed too.

I don't have to find what you ask for in Acts.

Thanks. You made my point. He was preaching to believers.

 

[Epiphoskei]

It is clear that you assume he modifies this gospel if an unbeliever is known to be present.

If Paul preached to a body of unbelievers an evangelistic message concerning Christ's definite redemption of a people taken out of all nations, when Paul later speaks to the portion of that body who are that people, it is entirely correct for him to say that Christ died for them. An unbelieving and unmentioned third party who might have been present during this message but to whom Paul is not speaking is not viable as an antecedent in this verse.

To sum up what you haven't proved in this thread thus far:

1)You haven't proven "Christ died for our sins" is a direct quote of what Paul spoke originally.

2)If "Christ died for our sins" was a direct quote, you haven't proven that Paul was speaking inclusively of the audience at the time. The context of the rest of the sermon would be necessary to determine this, and it wasn't recorded. Had Paul said "we" several times beforehand in sentences wherein he lumped himself together with the Corinthians, that would suggest inclusivity. Had he said anything along the lines of "I am an apostle sent from God and from the Church as an emissary unto you that you might believe and enter into the rest of the church with us," that single use of exclusive "us" casts doubt on your entire thesis.

3)If the phrase is an indirect quote, you haven't proven that the antecedent extends beyond Paul and the Corinthian Church. Indeed, it cannot be the case that Paul intended to signify anything more than the inclusion of himself and the Corinthians. Pronouns which are explicitly inclusive of the second and third person do not exist. In any language. It is believed the language center in the brain isn't capable of handling that precise of a definition when trying to process a pronoun. To signify that you are speaking about a group containing both the second and third person requires explicit elaboration, and cannot be done with one pronoun.

4)Even if Christ died for the unsaved, you haven't proven that this constitutes the atonement. Since Christ did not efficaciously redeem the unsaved by ending their sin, all this means is that Christ's death contains an element besides the atonement which can be for all men, while the salvation inherent in Christ's bearing away of one's damnation remains merely for the saved. I am not endorsing this view, but it would be the logical necessity if your verse is taken the way you want it to be taken. Disputes over the atonement are first and foremost and always about what the atonement is. If you are not prepared to argue from chapter and verse which explicitly state that the atonement is a potentiality, that's not exegetical theology. That's a contrivance designed to align the atonement with your perspectives on other doctrines.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

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.

It would be a nice way out, however he already said this:

Indeed, one must believe for the atonement to be applied

So now the atonement has been limited in application to only those who believe (the elect), and only because of the sufficiency of Christ's death and the potential to save can he say "Christ died for all men".

 

[Johnnz]

I accept Jesus' sacrifice was for all of humanity. Otherwise He only died for some sins of some people, a partial offering. All sin within God's creation had to be annulled and removed for all of creation, not just humans, to be fully restored, for Eden to be resumed and transcended.

However, people chose to live out of that gracious provision, or outside of it. There is no inherent implication of universalism in a complete sacrifice for all sin and the necessity to avail oneself of its benefits - a 'choose or lose' situation.

John
NZ

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

All sin within God's creation had to be annulled and removed for all of creation, not just humans

I have other issues with your post, but most importantly, how on earth does Jesus atone for angels, of which are not even of the human race, or even a race themselves?

If race has nothing to do with it, then the Logos need not take on flesh.

 

[Johnnz]

I have other issues with your post, but most importantly, how on earth does Jesus atone for angels, of which are not even of the human race, or even a race themselves?

If race has nothing to do with it, then the Logos need not take on flesh.

That's not a necessary problem. We are not told very much about angels and realms beyond our own in Scripture. The biblical story is about fallen humanity in a damaged creation. This was the realm into which Jesus entered our humanity that we might more fully participate in His.

John
NZ

 

[janxharris]

He didn't preach to unbelievers. He witnessed to them. Find in Acts where he presented the gospel in the manner that you suggest

Acts 14:1-7
Now at Iconium they entered together into the Jewish synagogue and spoke in such a way that a great number of both Jews and Greeks believed. But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers. So they remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands. But the people of the city were divided; some sided with the Jews and some with the apostles. When an attempt was made by both Gentiles and Jews, with their rulers, to mistreat them and to stone them, they learned of it and fled to Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and to the surrounding country, and there they continued to preach the gospel.

 

[janxharris]

Do any other posters here agree with Hammster that Paul never preached the gospel to unbelievers?

 

[Hammster]

Acts 14:1-7
Now at Iconium they entered together into the Jewish synagogue and spoke in such a way that a great number of both Jews and Greeks believed. But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers. So they remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands. But the people of the city were divided; some sided with the Jews and some with the apostles. When an attempt was made by both Gentiles and Jews, with their rulers, to mistreat them and to stone them, they learned of it and fled to Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and to the surrounding country, and there they continued to preach the gospel.

Notice the first sentence?

 

[Hammster]

I accept Jesus' sacrifice was for all of humanity. Otherwise He only died for some sins of some people, a partial offering. All sin within God's creation had to be annulled and removed for all of creation, not just humans, to be fully restored, for Eden to be resumed and transcended.

However, people chose to live out of that gracious provision, or outside of it. There is no inherent implication of universalism in a complete sacrifice for all sin and the necessity to avail oneself of its benefits - a 'choose or lose' situation.

John
NZ

The problem with this view is that there's no biblical support. The Day of Atonement foreshadows Christ's atonement. It's was limited to God's people, and there's nothing in Lev 16 that says (or hints at) the people needing to choose to live out the gracious provision.

 

[Hammster]

Has anyone else here honestly, when the read 1 Cor 15, came away with the same conclusion that Janx has?

 

[Hammster]

Okay Janx, let's assume that you're right and these are the words Paul used.

1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand,
2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you-unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.


What did Paul mean when he said that Christ died for our sins? Was the death propitious? Potentially propitious? What?