What did Paul preach to the Corinthians?

[Jack Terrence]

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.

Exactly! This is one way I know that Calvinism is true.

 

[janxharris]

It's amazing to me that folks around here hate Calvinism SO BAD that they'll team up with people who are promoting Antinomianism if they have to. I mean, seriously? Is unconditional election that horrific?

Yes, unconditional election is that bad.

Is God's right to have mercy on whom he'll have mercy such a disgusting concept that a theology that teaches a lifestyle of licentiousness makes no difference as long as a person professed faith in Christ as a child is actually preferred?

You misuse Romans 9:18. God chose to have mercy, but he did not choose to have mercy on a man because of his works; rather, God chose to have mercy on all those in Christ, for Christ was God's true elect:

1 Peter 1:20
He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

Is God's freedom to save sinners without any consideration to any foreseen action or belief on their part so utterly detestable that it's actually better to embrace a theology that turns the grace of God into nothing more than a get out of hell free card?

God did not save as you assert. I do not understand your last sentence.

I'm pretty confident Arminius himself would be backing the Calvinists in this regard and call out Free Graceism for the hellish doctrine it is, and give a sharp rebuke to you professing Arminians who seem to have no problem with it... yet the synergists around here are just like "You hate Calvinism too?!?! WELCOME BROTHER!!!!!!"

I have already said that I do not agree with FG2 on many points.

 

[Jack Terrence]

I have already said that I do not agree with FG2 on many points.

Then spend some energy refuting him. Your priorities betray you.

 

[guuila]

God did not save as you assert.

So I'm giving him too much credit? Are you saying it wasn't grace that caused me to believe?

I have already said that I do not agree with FG2 on many points.

You agree with him enough that you're willing to lock arms with him in your crusade to destroy Calvinism. It's sad that you think destroying the notion that God unconditionally elects hell deserving sinners to everlasting life is of higher priority than destroying the Antinomianism taught by FreeGrace2.

 

[janxharris]

I believe you are on to something. I am thinking that the apostles preached as apologists to the Jewish leadership to prove from scripture and from reason that Jesus was the Christ. There was no offer of salvation intended. John said that God had judicially blinded them (John 12:39-40). That judgment was irrevokeable.

The apostles preach to all and sundry, as has already been show.

No offer?

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.

Regarding John 12 - irrevocable you say? John quotes from the same place in Isaiah 6 that Matthew quoted from in Matthew 13. As I have said on a number of posts - Judas Iscariot was among those who DID see and understand. He was given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven.

However the apostles preached as evangelists to the people of God and adjusted their message to bring them to faith in Christ. Paul explicitly said that the remission of sins and the promises are for "us their children" (Acts 13:33). That would be the true children of Abraham and of the fathers. The non-children who were present on that occasion knew that they were not the children of the fathers, and so they would NOT have taken Paul's preaching as an offer of salvation to them. Paul said that they had judged themselves "ouk achious" of the message. I have come to take issue with the translation "unworthy" because the two Greek words "ouk" and "achious" together mean "not common."

Thus the expression, "you judge yourselves not common regarding eternal life," must mean that the Jews considered themselves an elite group unlike the commoners, and therefore above the message of life which they deemed was for the common folk. So, those who argue here that all present in Paul's audience would have thought the apostles offered them salvation is fallacious.

?

 

[janxharris]

Then spend some energy refuting him. Your priorities betray you.

Perhaps if I had more time I would.

 

[guuila]

Perhaps if I had more time I would.

Like he said, it's obvious where your priorities are.

 

[janxharris]

I find the constant intrusion of debate over Calvinism rather worrying. It seems some people virtually have a gospel according to Calvin as their main focus.

These two scriptures seem pretty plain to me and don't need any 'Calvanisms' as a framework for interpretation.

John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! NIV
I know of no other verse that refines that one to mean "Jesus died only for, and therefore took away, the sins of only those who are elected.

Matt 28:17-20 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." NIV

Insofar as 'all nations' includes those who have never heard about Jesus the Gospel was to be preached to unbelievers.

John
NZ

Hear, hear!

 

[guuila]

Poor Calvin. His name will forever be dragged through the mud when people stand up and defend God's sovereign grace.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Like he said, it's obvious where your priorities are.

 

[Jack Terrence]

These two scriptures seem pretty plain to me and don't need any 'Calvanisms' as a framework for interpretation.

John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! NIV
I know of no other verse that refines that one to mean "Jesus died only for, and therefore took away, the sins of only those who are elected.

If the word "world" means what you say it means, then no none can be damned because everyone's sins are taken away.

Paul said that the gospel had borne fruit in "all the world" (Colossians 1:6). So, using your definitions we must infer that the gospel had borne fruit in every man. Arminians seem to care not how terms are employed in the scriptures.

Matt 28:17-20 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." NIV

This is a lame argument because it literally is "all races." This means only that the Gospel was not to be preached exclusively to Jews. To say that it means every man is quite a stretch.

 

[janxharris]

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

Which was your response to:

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

John
NZ

Show us where 'the world' is ever explicitly defined as 'the elect'.

 

[janxharris]

Yes. That's how people are converted.

Yes, by telling them that Christ died and rose on the third day. Why did Paul tell unbelievers that Christ rose on the third day if Christ's resurrection was not intended for all men? Paul preached Christ's resurrection without any suggestion that its benefits were limited to a certain elect group. Paul just stated that Christ died and rose. No one is withheld the option to benefit from that fact. No one.

 

[janxharris]

Correct!

So Paul mislead his audience, for we know that he preached to unbelievers?

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Show us where 'the world' is ever explicitly defined as 'the elect'.

Check out 2 Corinthians 5:19.

This may be of help:

As far as kosmos is concerned, it clearly was employed by the Holy Spirit to communicate that the narrow bounds of the OT have been abolished. God’s revelation and salvific blessing were at that time largely restricted to one nation, his peculiar people, whereas the “world” was left in darkness. “You only have I known of all the families of the earth” (Amos 3:2). Note also Ps 147:19–20; Jer 10:25. “But now” (Eph 2:13), the cross-work of Jesus has “universalized” God’s redemptive grace. The Church is composed of Jew and Gentile. God is calling to himself a people who were not his people: the Gentiles (Rom 9:24–26; 1 Pet 2:10). He is found by them who sought him not (Rom 10:20). Now, as opposed to then, repentance and remission of sins are to be preached to all nations (Luke 24:47). Disciples are to be made of all nations (Matt 28:19–20). The gospel is the power of God to all who believe, both to Jew and Gentile (Rom 1:16). God is pouring out his Spirit on all flesh (Acts 2:17). They who once were without Christ, strangers, aliens, and without God or hope, have now been drawn near by the blood of Christ (Eph 2:11–13). The radical nature of this glorious truth is witnessed in the Jewish response to Gentile salvation. According to Paul, they were “filled with envy” (Acts 13:42–50). The Jews, he tells us, “please not God, and are contrary to all men; forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved” (1 Thess 2:15–16). Yet salvation has come to the Gentiles “to provoke them to jealousy” (Rom 11:11; Acts 22:21–22). It required a heavenly vision to convince Peter (Acts 10–11). And note the response: “Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life” (Acts 11:18). This truth is part of the mystery kept secret in ages past: “that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ by the gospel” (Eph 3:5–6).
The word kosmos, it would appear, was an especially appropriate term to utilize in order to express this idea that the saving grace of God had extended into every country, to all peoples, viewed not in terms of individualistic universality, an “all without exception,” but “all without distinction”—that is, without regard for ethnic or geographical criteria.

 

[guuila]

Which was your response to:

Show us where 'the world' is ever explicitly defined as 'the elect'.

So you interpret John 3:16 as God loved the non-elect such that he sent his only Son to give eternal life to the elect? That's different.

 

[janxharris]

So you interpret John 3:16 as God loved the non-elect such that he sent his only Son to give eternal life to the elect? That's different.

No, I do not interpret it that way.

Are you going to provide a verse that explicitly shows that 'the world' can mean 'the elect' or not?

 

[guuila]

No, I do not interpret it that way.

How do you interpret it?

Are you going to provide a verse that explicitly shows that 'the world' can mean 'the elect' or not?

Charis already did.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Are you going to provide a verse that explicitly shows that 'the world' can mean 'the elect' or not?

It wouldn't need to. I'm not taking a stance on the issue either way, but "God loved every single person who ever lived without exception like this: he gave his unique son so that all believers will not perish but have eternal life" is not exactly an expression of the universality of either intention or effect of the atonement, is it?

 

[Jack Terrence]

Are you going to provide a verse that explicitly shows that 'the world' can mean 'the elect' or not?

Are you going to provide a context which explicitly shows that 'the world' can mean 'every human being' or not?

I can! Jesus told His disciples that the 'world' would hate them. He explained to them that this would happen "as it is written in THEIR law, 'they hated me without a cause.' "

This is EXPLICIT! The 'world' in the context is not all men. They are the unbelieving Jews, for the Gentiles did not have the law (Romans 2:14).