What did Paul preach to the Corinthians?

[OzSpen]

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

Another red herring!

 

[Epiphoskei]

Shouting "red herring" is not an all-purpose response to avoid interacting with other people's arguments.

 

[guuila]

Shouting "red herring" is not an all-purpose response to avoid interacting with other people's arguments.

It's a not-so-clever diversion tactic.

 

[Jack Terrence]

It's a not-so-clever diversion tactic.

He does it a lot.

 

[OzSpen]

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?

So what is your point with this kind of question?

 

[OzSpen]

Shouting "red herring" is not an all-purpose response to avoid interacting with other people's arguments.

When a person engages in the use of a red herring logical fallacy to divert attention away from the topic of my post to his/her agenda, I will expose it as a red herring.

We cannot have a logical discussion when people use logical fallacies.

When people continue to use red herring logical fallacies, I'll mention that because reasonable conversation on a topic is not possible when people use such tactics.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

It's a not-so-clever diversion tactic.

That's because red herring IS a diversion tactic and I'll expose it when it is used. Logical discussion is prohibited when any logical fallacy is used.

In fact, your comment here is also a red herring to get away from the content of what I stated: 'Red herring'. So what did you do? Instead of asking me why it was a 'red herring', you went off at your own tangent - red herring - 'It's a not-so-clever diversion tactic'.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

He does it a lot.

I only call a person for engaging in the use of a logical fallacy when he/she uses logical fallacies.

By the way, why did you talk about me, 'He does it a lot', instead of speaking with me directly? You have talked behind my back and thus I find your approach, talking to another behind my back, to be a flaming tactic you have used against me.

 

[Epiphoskei]

When a person engages in the use of a red herring logical fallacy to divert attention away from the topic of my post to his/her agenda, I will expose it as a red herring.

Except you throw it out when people try to divert attention away from your agenda in order to examine the logical consequences of your posts. When you write something which suggests vacillation on a point, it's anyone's prerogative to ask for clarification.

 

[Epiphoskei]

So what is your point with this kind of question?

The question is rhetorical. Take the "is it?" off the end and read it as a statement if you prefer. The point is self evident. John 3:16 doesn't promote a universal atonement regardless of what the scope of "world" is.

 

[Hammster]

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.

Paul didn't know who the elect were.

 

[Hammster]

Another red herring!

Another dodge by you.

 

[Hammster]

So what is your point with this kind of question?

Red herring.

 

[Hammster]

That's because red herring IS a diversion tactic and I'll expose it when it is used. Logical discussion is prohibited when any logical fallacy is used.

In fact, your comment here is also a red herring to get away from the content of what I stated: 'Red herring'. So what did you do? Instead of asking me why it was a 'red herring', you went off at your own tangent - red herring - 'It's a not-so-clever diversion tactic'.

Oz

Red herring.

 

[guuila]

I guess this was overlooked.

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

What is Calvinistic about that?

 

[Jack Terrence]

I only call a person for engaging in the use of a logical fallacy when he/she uses logical fallacies.

You do not accept it when your fallacies are pointed out to you. You commit the Fallacy of Generalization all the time here. The word "world" has various meanings:

Order or arrangement
The earth in contrast with heaven
The sum of temporal possessions
Believing Jews
Unbelieving Jews
Jews as distinguished from Gentiles
Jews and Gentiles that believe
Believing Gentiles
Gentiles as distinguished from Jews
Men that are in opposition to God
Abraham's children

Yet you just want us to just ignore context and apply your generalizations every time we see the word in scripture. Really, you should become a Universlalist because only Calvinism and Universalism are consistent. Paul said that Christ reconciled the world unto Himself. The verb "reconciled" is indicative. There is nothing potential about it. Therefore, Universalism would be consistent.

By the way, why did you talk about me, 'He does it a lot', instead of speaking with me directly? You have talked behind my back and thus I find your approach, talking to another behind my back, to be a flaming tactic you have used against me.

If you are present it's not "behind your back." Go ahead and report me if you must.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Agreed. The gospel was and is preached to unbelievers.

Not so! The gospel brings men "from faith to faith" (Romans 1:16-17). The elect have the seed of faith sown in them at some point BEFORE God calls them by the gospel. If they do not have the seed of faith in them, then God does not call them, for the gospel brings men "from faith to faith."

 

[Jack Terrence]

Paul didn't know who the elect were.

In some cases he did. He was an apostle and a prophet. He knew that certain Gentiles would listen.

On one occasion Christ told Him where His people were and sent Him to preach to them.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

The point is self evident. John 3:16 doesn't promote a universal atonement regardless of what the scope of "world" is.

It's the same way with all proof texts based on the usage of κόσμος. It has such a diverse meaning and takes so many different forms.

Check out John 12:19:

John 12:19 - So the Pharisees said to one another, “You see that you are gaining nothing. Look, the world has gone after him.”

Very interesting usage; definitely not all men without qualification, nor the world of evil men (obviously). It is some limited scope of the surrounding regions.

 

[Jack Terrence]

It's the same way with all proof texts based on the usage of κόσμος. It has such a diverse meaning and takes so many different forms.

Check out John 12:19:

John 12:19 - So the Pharisees said to one another, “You see that you are gaining nothing. Look, the world has gone after him.”

Very interesting usage; definitely not all men without qualification, nor the world of evil men (obviously). It is some limited scope of the surrounding regions.

Well said!