What did Paul preach to the Corinthians?

[janxharris]

I have, by my count, three times now given you a hypothetical context wherein Paul could have said "Christ died for our sins" in a particularly redemptive sense to unbelievers. All it would take is for Paul to have used one exclusive pronoun, when he spoke on behalf of him and the church together as "we." I see no reason to accept that your hypothetical context as necessary while you conversely reject my hypothetical context out of hand.

If it was the case, as you assert, that when Paul originally preached to the unbelieving Corinthians he had actually told them that Christ had died for his (Paul's) and the other members of the church's sins, and not necessarily for their (unbelieving Corinthians) sins, then in the letter, Paul is reminding them of this. This would, presumably, apply to the resurrection as well. So the gospel is, essentially, that Christ's death and resurrection are only for believers. It isn't for those that God determined it would not be for.

Your problem is that Paul fails to make this point explicitly. His language in 1 Corinthians 15 is not consistent with such a gospel.

3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,​

Shouldn't Paul rather have said something like this:

3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for believers sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day for believers only, according to the Scriptures,​

That line of argumentation is as clear as mud. I know you can't make it any clearer, but that's because your argument is indefensible, not because you've already made it sufficiently clear.

Say I give a lecture to a room full of Americans and Japanese about the Battle of Midway. Years later one of the Americans and I meet again, and he vaguely recalls this lecture, but doesn't remember who won. I want to refresh his memory, so I say, "This is what I taught, that we won." There is no grammatical or morphological or syntactical or metasyntactical justification for either taking that as a direct quote or for insisting that the antecedent of "we" includes anyone more than the first and second person - myself and the American student.

So Paul made it clear beyond doubt that under no circumstances is anyone to preach the gospel to unbelievers and give them the impression that Christ died and rose from the dead for them necessarily? He established this did he? So, when he finally did say in his letter, 'this is what we preach', nobody was in any way confused about what 'this' referred to?

As I have stated, repeatedly, I don't have a problem if the Bible includes unbelievers under Christ's death, as that only signifies there is an additional, non-atoning universality within Christ's death. It does not make universal the redemption which is inherent in reconciliation with the father which is inherent in the payment for sins which is effected by the death of Christ.

So it would signify an additional, non-atoning universality within Christ's death, but it doesn't actually benefit the reprobates one iota?

Why are you bothering to bring it up?

But moreover, you need to go back and read and at least attempt to interact with what I've written on second person clusivity. You've demanded on several occasions that I explain why Paul isn't guarding against a certain misunderstanding, but I have already established that the human brain is unable to make that misunderstanding, because second person clusivity is too complicated a concept for the language center to process when handling a pronoun. In other words, the concept "not just me, not just you, but them also" needs to be present in a text for reasons beyond pronoun choice. It's not. It's fairly apparent that the reason you see it in this text is that you introduced it to this text because of your precommitment to general atonement.

You have baffled me again.

Also consider, what I'm "vehemently defending against" is the idea that I Cor 15 has general atonement undertones, so it would be silly for me to expect Paul to explicitly preclude general atonement in this passage, since he's said nothing which would indicate it except to those who are already precommitted to it.

So preachers are just supposed to extrapolate and realise that Paul did not mean that what he says directly to the believing Corinthians is, under any circumstances, to be repeated to unbelievers?

Really?

 

[janxharris]

Paul didn't know who the elect were.

That is correct.

Under Calvinism, Paul told reprobates about Christ's resurrection and Christ dying for sinners like them. That makes Paul a deceiver of men. Woefully so.

 

[Jack Terrence]

So it would signify an additional, non-atoning universality within Christ's death, but it doesn't actually benefit the reprobates one iota?

There are indeed non-atoning benefits that are the consequence of Christ's death. Men are no longer to be put to death for for adultery, homosexuality, sabbath breaking, cursing parents and so forth. Christ's death covered the civil penalties for these crimes.

 

[Jack Terrence]

That is correct.

Explain how Paul could say that the Gentiles would listen (Acts 28:28). If he knew that they would listen, then he knew that they were Elect.

Do you affirm or deny that Paul was a prophet?

 

[janxharris]

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."

You are making an inference.

Proof that the gospel is preached to unbelievers.

2 Corinthians 5:11
Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade others. What we are is plain to God, and I hope it is also plain to your conscience.​

Romans 15:20
It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation.​

Examples cited include Philip (and that of various Christians), Peter, John, and Paul). All scriptures are from Acts.

Chapter 8, verses 4 & 5
Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went. Philip went down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed the Messiah there.​

Did they only encounter believers? Obviously not.

Ibid., verses 9-13
Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city (of Samaria) and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great, and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention and exclaimed, “This man is rightly called the Great Power of God.” They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his sorcery. But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw.
​

Ibid., v. 25
After they had further proclaimed the word of the Lord and testified about Jesus, Peter and John returned to Jerusalem, preaching the gospel in many Samaritan villages.​

Ibid., v. 40
Philip, however, appeared at Azotus and traveled about, preaching the gospel in all the towns until he reached Caesarea.​

Chapter 10:42
He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead.​

Peter confirms that what he preached was to all and sundry, for Jesus had told him to do so to 'all the people'.

Chapter 11, vv. 19-21
Now those who had been scattered by the persecution that broke out when Stephen was killed traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, spreading the word only among Jews. Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus. The Lord’s hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord.​

Ch.13:2-5
While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off. The two of them, sent on their way by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia and sailed from there to Cyprus. When they arrived at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the Jewish synagogues. John was with them as their helper.​

Ibid., v.32 (Saul to the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch)
“We tell you the good news: What God promised our ancestors​

Ch.14:1-7
At Iconium Paul and Barnabas went as usual into the Jewish synagogue. There they spoke so effectively that a great number of Jews and Greeks believed. But the Jews who refused to believe stirred up the other Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers. So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to perform signs and wonders. The people of the city were divided; some sided with the Jews, others with the apostles. There was a plot afoot among both Gentiles and Jews, together with their leaders, to mistreat them and stone them. But they found out about it and fled to the Lycaonian cities of Lystra and Derbe and to the surrounding country, where they continued to preach the gospel.
​

A great number believed, but not all. It says in verse 7 that they continued to preach the gospel.

Ch.15:7 (The Council of Jerusalem)
After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.​

Ibid., v.36
Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.”​

When Paul ministered to believers, he specifies that that is indeed the case.
Now, do you accept that Paul (and others) preached the gospel to unbelievers?

 

[guuila]

I'll just leave this here...

Looks like "world" can mean elect after all.

 

[janxharris]

There are indeed non-atoning benefits that are the consequence of Christ's death. Men are no longer to be put to death for for adultery, homosexuality, sabbath breaking, cursing parents and so forth. Christ's death covered the civil penalties for these crimes.

All those those benefits as the reprobate is frogmarched to hell.

 

[OzSpen]

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.

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

When I use a generalisation that is incorrect, that is the time to draw my attention to it. Not like you have done here with your generalisation without a specific example.

A moderator has told me that 'piling on' (talking to another person without directly to that person) is a form of flaming on CF.

So when you talk about me to another you are flaming against me, according to this moderator on CF.

Oz

 

[guuila]

When I use a generalisation that is incorrect, that is the time to draw my attention to it. Not like you have done here with your generalisation without a specific example.

A moderator has told me that 'piling on' (talking to another person without directly to that person) is a form of flaming on CF.

So when you talk about me to another you are flaming against me, according to this moderator on CF.

Oz

Red herring. Address the actual argument being made. Thanks!

 

[Jack Terrence]

You are making an inference.

We all make inferences. The question is whether or not our inferences are valid.

Cornelius was not an unbeliever. He believed in the Messiah who was to come. So he was not an unbeliever. But he had not heard that the Messiah had already come. So God sent Peter to him to preach to him that the Messiah had come and he believed. Thus Cornelius is an example of the gospel bringing a man "from faith to faith."

Proof that the gospel is preached to unbelievers.

2 Corinthians 5:11

Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade others. What we are is plain to God, and I hope it is also plain to your conscience.

Romans 15:20

It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation

You are making an invalid inference. None of these narratives prove that the seed of faith was not already in their hearts. Paul explicitly said "from faith to faith."

Examples cited include Philip...

Philip was searching the scriptures. Do you really expect me to believe that a man searches the scriptures in the manner that Philip did without having the seed of faith in him?

Your limited definition of a believer is thoroughly unscriptural. Your entire post is nothing but invalid inference.

 

[guuila]

I guess this was overlooked... probably not on purpose.

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

What is Calvinistic about that?

 

[Hammster]

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.

If he knew, why did Christ need to tell him?

 

[Jack Terrence]

When I use a generalisation that is incorrect, that is the time to draw my attention to it.

Your generalizations have been pointed out to you before.

Not like you have done here with your generalisation without a specific example.

I did give an example from John 15:18-28 earlier today. You and Janx have ignored it. Jesus told His disciples that the "world" would hate them as it hated Him. He said that it was written in THEIR law that they would hate Him. This excludes the Gentiles because they did not have the law (Rom. 2:14). Thus in John 15:18-28 the "world" is unbelieving Jews.

A moderator has told me that 'piling on' (talking to another person without directly to that person) is a form of flaming on CF.

Is this written in the rules? Anyway, I will not do it again.

 

[Hammster]

That is correct.

Under Calvinism, Paul told reprobates about Christ's resurrection and Christ dying for sinners like them. That makes Paul a deceiver of men. Woefully so.

Nice juke there. I was talking about the resurrection. You added the part about Christ dying for sinners like them.

Bad form, bro.

 

[guuila]

Well, that was interesting.

 

[Jack Terrence]

If he knew, why did Christ need to tell him?

Exactly! On some occasions Paul knew who the Elect were because Christ revealed it to him because he was a prophet.

Btw, this disproves the Charismatic's view that apostles and prophets exist today. No man today is given to know who will listen to the Gospel.

 

[Jack Terrence]

All those those benefits as the reprobate is frogmarched to hell.

"Frogmarched?" Paul said that they take pleasure in the evil they do.

 

[Hammster]

Exactly! On some occasions Paul knew who the Elect were because Christ revealed it to him because he was a prophet.

Btw, this disproves the Charismatic's view that apostles and prophets exist today. No man today is given to know who will listen to the Gospel.

Where did Christ give him specifics?

 

[Hammster]

Well, that was interesting.

I hope you didn't have any fun.

 

[janxharris]

"Frogmarched?" Paul said that they take pleasure in the evil they do.

So do all men. What is your point?

Why do you persist in trying to hold reprobates accountable? They have no access to salvation, remember? God doesn't give a hoot about them, right?

Frogmarched with bells on.