What did Paul preach to the Corinthians?

[janxharris]

Where are you FreeGrace2?

 

[janxharris]

.

Did Paul preach the gospel to unbelievers?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7787859-33/#post64529689

 

[janxharris]

.

Did Paul preach the gospel to unbelievers?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7787859-33/#post64529689

 

[janxharris]

.

Did Paul preach the gospel to unbelievers?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7787859-33/#post64529689

 

[janxharris]

.

Did Paul preach the gospel to unbelievers?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7787859-33/#post64529689

 

[janxharris]

.

Did Paul preach the gospel to unbelievers?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7787859-33/#post64529689

 

[janxharris]

.

Did Paul preach the gospel to unbelievers?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7787859-33/#post64529689

 

[janxharris]

.

Did Paul preach the gospel to unbelievers?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7787859-33/#post64529689

 

[Jack Terrence]

He didn't preach to unbelievers. He witnessed to them

Please explain.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Did Paul preach the gospel to unbelievers?

Already answered. When not given to know if all in his audience would listen Paul clarified his message saying that the remission of sins and the promises are for the children of the patriarchs (Acts 13:33). Not all are the children of the patriarchs (John 8).

 

[OzSpen]

Did Paul preach the gospel to unbelievers?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7787859-33/#post64529689

Acts 17:16-21 states:

16 Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols. 17 So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the market-place every day with those who happened to be there. 18 Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, “What does this babbler wish to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. 19 And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20 For you bring some strange things to our ears. We wish to know therefore what these things mean.” 21 Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new (ESV, emphasis added).

It's a BIG stretch of the imagination to say that there were no unbelievers among:

• those 'in the market-place every day with those who happened to be there'.
• 'Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers'; Were these all Christian believers that Paul preached to in Athens?
• Who would address this preacher with the question, 'What does this babbler wish to say?' Are you telling me that a person who heard preaching on Jesus and the resurrection who was a believer would accuse Paul of being a 'babbler'?
• I am dumbfounded to think that a born-again, regenerated, atoned-for believer would say: 'you bring some strange things to our ears' with preaching on Jesus and the resurrection;
• 'all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there' were all believers???? That's a stretch.

And I haven't dealt with Paul's audience at the Areopagus (Acts 17:22-34). Among Paul's audience here were those who, 'when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked' (Acts 17:32). So these mockers of the resurrection of the dead were all believers, were they?


We could go on and on with evidence of unbelievers among the audience where Paul preached, as recorded in Acts. When Paul and Silas were in Berea, it states that 'many of them therefore believed' (Acts 17:12). So is it saying that believers now believed? That again is stretching my imagination beyond belief.

 

[OzSpen]

Where are you FreeGrace2?

I tried to PM him and it was rejected. Is he banned? I don't know.

 

[OzSpen]

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

In Acts 17, Paul was engaged in dialegomai with unbelievers. It matters not whether it is preaching, defense of the faith, discussion with unbelievers (dialegomai) - it is still proclamation of the gospel to unbelievers. Since when was 'preaching' (how do you define it?) the only means of proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus and the resurrection?

There are a number of means by which one can do that. Why should 'preaching' (please define) be the only means of reaching unbelievers? Does that eliminate proclamation of the Gospel today through mass media, including letter box drops of literature to promote the Gospel? Is your definition of preaching the only means of proclaiming the Gospel?

Oz

 

[Hammster]

Please explain.

It's been my understanding that preaching is for believers. It's the work if the preacher/teacher. Witnessing is what you do with unbelievers.

I also understand that these terms can be a bit ambiguous. So it won't be a hill I'm dying on.

 

[Hammster]

Acts 17:16-21 states:

It's a BIG stretch of the imagination to say that there were no unbelievers among:

• those 'in the market-place every day with those who happened to be there'.
• 'Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers'; Were these all Christian believers that Paul preached to in Athens?
• Who would address this preacher with the question, 'What does this babbler wish to say?' Are you telling me that a person who heard preaching on Jesus and the resurrection who was a believer would accuse Paul of being a 'babbler'?
• I am dumbfounded to think that a born-again, regenerated, atoned-for believer would say: 'you bring some strange things to our ears' with preaching on Jesus and the resurrection;
• 'all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there' were all believers???? That's a stretch.

And I haven't dealt with Paul's audience at the Areopagus (Acts 17:22-34). Among Paul's audience here were those who, 'when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked' (Acts 17:32). So these mockers of the resurrection of the dead were all believers, were they?


We could go on and on with evidence of unbelievers among the audience where Paul preached, as recorded in Acts. When Paul and Silas were in Berea, it states that 'many of them therefore believed' (Acts 17:12). So is it saying that believers now believed? That again is stretching my imagination beyond belief.

Where does it say he preached?

 

[Hammster]

It seems that Janx has decided to spam the thread with links to a comment I made. I realize that "preach" can be an ambiguous word. So I'll retract my statement so that we won't get distracted any further.

It still remains to be seen if Janx can prove his assertion that Paul believed in unlimited atonement, based on 1 Cor 15.

Carry on.

 

[Hammster]

I don't know specifically.

Is it impossible for God to make Christ known to them?

Is it possible that God didn't make Christ known to them?

 

[guuila]

I don't know specifically.

Is it impossible for God to make Christ known to them?

Well, it's in your best interest to figure it out. Your theology demands that God treat everyone equally in regard to revealing the way of salvation to them, so how was it that the Amorites were to know about Christ?

What about people today who die never having heard of Jesus? How are they supposed to be saved?

 

[guuila]

Where are you FreeGrace2?

Really? Are you and Oz (Oz I'm not talking behind your back. I'm actually hoping you read this - so I'm saying this to you directly) this desperate for other Calvinism haters? You do realize Free Graceism teaches that devil worshippers will go to heaven provided they believed for a minute when they were kids, right? Free Graceism outright denies the doctrine of sanctification, and also denies that a person can lose their salvation (which any true Arminian should have a problem with). But you're just fine sweeping all of that under the rug as long as he also hates Calvinism?

 

[guuila]

Oz - look at the above post. I'm not talking behind your back. ^^^^