What did Paul preach to the Corinthians?

[guuila]

Well, that was fun. Seriously.

I thought so too, but I'm not allowed to say it.

 

[Johnnz]

So it's your theory that Peter was telling the saints that God is delaying Christ's return hoping the non-elect will believe?

???

Peter quite clearly is stating, sans any prefiguring of Calvin, that Jesus will return when He decides, and meantime any delay allows for more people to be presented with the good news of the Gospel. That is consistent with John 3:16, which tells us of the extent of God's love - 'the world'.

John
NZ

 

[guuila]

???

Peter quite clearly is stating, sans any prefiguring of Calvin, that Jesus will return when He decides, and meantime any delay allows for more people to be presented with the good news of the Gospel.

Why do you keep mentioning Calvin? I've never read a single thing written by him. Let's talk about what the Bible says. So you believe God is delaying the 2nd coming of Christ because he isn't willing that any of the elect perish. Is that correct?

That is consistent with John 3:16, which tells us of the extent of God's love - 'the world'.

John
NZ

Right. God not only loves Jews, but Gentiles also.

 

[janxharris]

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).

So the gospel was to be preached to unbelievers. They were deceived and are being deceived.

Galatians 3:7
Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham.

We children of Abraham through faith, not because we are blood descendents.

 

[OzSpen]

What is Calvinistic about what I said?

'"God is delaying Christ's return hoping the non-elect will believe?'(your statement).

 

[janxharris]

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.

Agreed. The gospel was and is preached to unbelievers.

 

[Hammster]

'"God is delaying Christ's return hoping the non-elect will believe?'(your statement).

Is there people called elect in your theology?

 

[janxharris]

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.

You have been clearly shown that the gospel was (and obviously still is) preached to unbelievers. Surely, the only reason that you think that preaching the gospel was to be only for believers is because of your doctrines? The gospel includes the fact that Jesus rose on the third day. If you say that to an unbeliever, he rightly assumes that that fact is applicable to him (the unbeliever).

 

[OzSpen]

Is there people called elect in your theology?

Red herring.

 

[OzSpen]

Agreed. The gospel was and is preached to unbelievers.

Anything to the contrary counteracts the evidence from the Book of Acts, Acts 17 being but one example.

 

[janxharris]

Where does it say he preached?

v.18
And also some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were conversing with him. Some were saying, "What would this idle babbler wish to say?" Others, "He seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities,"-- because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection.

 

[Hammster]

Red herring.

No. It's just an uncomfortable question for you to answer.

 

[janxharris]

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.

Okay, but 'the gospel' is unambiguous - did Paul and the other apostles/disciples make known the gospel whilst speaking to unbelievers?

 

[guuila]

'"God is delaying Christ's return hoping the non-elect will believe?'(your statement).

What is Calvinistic about that?

 

[janxharris]

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?

Romans 2:14-15
(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

Matthew 11:20-24
Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades.e For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.”

 

[janxharris]

Anyone can chime in on this, but it would seem that the view espoused by FreeGrace2 is almost as different from Arminianism as it is from Calvinism. So why would a self-proclaimed Arminian align himself with someone who 1). doesn't believe that salvation can be lost; and 2) believes it to the extent that if you believes for one minute as a child, you can live a life if debauchery as an adult and still inherit eternal life?

The only reason I can see is that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I don't align myself with FG2 on all points. It is difficult to keep up with all the posts when there are so many against so few.

 

[Hammster]

Okay, but 'the gospel' is unambiguous - did Paul and the other apostles/disciples make known the gospel whilst speaking to unbelievers?

Yes. That's how people are converted.

 

[guuila]

Romans 2:14-15
(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

Matthew 11:20-24
Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades.e For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.”

Did you have a point?

 

[janxharris]

The only person who has contested this is "The Boxer". What everyone else is contesting is not whether or not the Gospel was preached universally, but whether or not the Gospel contains the idea that Jesus died unilaterally for all men and atoned for all of their sins, and whether that idea should be shared at all. More specifically, whether we should say "Christ died for you" to an unbeliever.

In substance, I agree. I will try again.

Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:12-16

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either.​

Notably, Paul does not limit the scope of Christ's resurrection in any way. It is stated as a fact. Why, if it is the case that we must guard against misleading an unbeliever into thinking that he potentially benefits from Christ's resurrection, doesn't Paul do so? Instead, Paul says:
...this is what we preach, and this is what you believed. (v.11)

Paul preaches that Jesus died for our sins and that He rose again on the third day. The Corinthians believed both of these assertions. Why did Paul tell the Corinthians (when they were unbelievers) that Christ rose on the third day if it is the case that Christ's resurrection does not benefit all men? It is only necessary to ask such a question because of what John Calvin wrote regarding this:

"We call predestination God's eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is fore-ordained for some, eternal damnation for others." ('Institutes of the Christian Religion', Bk 3, ch 21, p. 5)​

Also, here is A. W. 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)​

So, based on these quotes, Christ's death and resurrection did not apply to those that were not elected by God.

 

[Jack Terrence]

So, based on these quotes, Christ's death and resurrection did not apply to those that were not elected by God.

Correct!