What did Paul preach to the Corinthians?

[OzSpen]

Hi again Oz,

There is a difference between fault and different beliefs. We see Paul addressing different beliefs by encouraging mutual acceptance on non essential issues (food, holy days, circumcision for example) even when he had very clear views personally which he vigorously stated. There are significant variations amongst Christians on many matters. We need to learn how to live with that within the unity of our common relationship with Christ. The spite and dogmatic judgments we see here at times is truly sub Christian.

John
NZ

Thanks, John, for your clarity. You bless me with your ability to be brief and clear.

If I am ever spiteful in my judgments, which I agree is sub-Christian, would you please draw these to my attention so that I correct them. Perhaps you've seen where I've done this and you could do that now?

In Christ,
Oz

 

[OzSpen]

It deals with omniscience.

I also deals with election and God's foreknowledge.

 

[OzSpen]

I disagree with the moderator, but I may have to abide by his/her subjective definitions. Talk radio blasts Obama on the public air waves every day. I don't see him accusing people of talking behind his back. He rather criticizes radio for misrepresenting his views.

The Free Dictionary and Thesaurus says that talking behind someone's back occurs when the person doesn't know about it. We are saying things in public forums. No one is talking behind your back. You need to develop some thick skin.

Obama is not on a Christian forum where flaming is prohibited.

'Piling on' is a technique in which one fails to address the person with the issue but talks about him to somebody else. That is flaming activity towards anyone when it happens on CF, on the basis of a moderator's statement.

 

[Hammster]

I also deals with election and God's foreknowledge.

I wasn't. So your interjection is a red herring.

 

[Hammster]

Obama is not on a Christian forum where flaming is prohibited.

'Piling on' is a technique in which one fails to address the person with the issue but talks about him to somebody else. That is flaming activity towards anyone when it happens on CF, on the basis of a moderator's statement.

Please stop trying to moderate. If you have an issue with a member, either report them or ignore them.

 

[OzSpen]

Please stop trying to moderate. If you have an issue with a member, either report them or ignore them.

Are you in this thread as a participator or a moderator?

 

[Hammster]

Are you in this thread as a participator or a moderator?

A participant who happens to be a moderator.

 

[guuila]

I guess this was overlooked. Probably just an accident.

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

What is Calvinistic about that?

 

[Jack Terrence]

Obama is not on a Christian forum where flaming is prohibited.

'Piling on' is a technique in which one fails to address the person with the issue but talks about him to somebody else. That is flaming activity towards anyone when it happens on CF, on the basis of a moderator's statement.

Christian or non-Christian we are not free to impose our own definitions. Talking behind someone's back is defined by the Free Dictionary and Thesaurus as occurring when the person being talked about doesn't know about it.

This is a public forum. No one is talking "behind your back."

I said that I wouldn't do it anymore didn't I?

 

[Jack Terrence]

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

So why didn't Christ return in Paul's time? Paul said that the gospel had been preached to "every creature under heaven," and that it had borne fruit in "all the world" (Colossians 1:6, 23).

 

[Walter2013]

Under Calvinism, Paul told men about the resurrection of Christ whilst knowing at the same time that Christ did not rise from the dead for some of them. That makes Paul a deceiver of men. Woefully so.

Amen! Paul would never lie like the Calvanists are saying.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Under Calvinism, Paul told men about the resurrection of Christ whilst knowing at the same time that Christ did not rise from the dead for some of them. That makes Paul a deceiver of men. Woefully so.

You're quite mistaken. Paul told the Jewish leadership that Christ was resurrected to prove that He was indeed the Christ, not to tell them that He was risen for them.

 

[Hammster]

Amen! Paul would never lie like the Calvanists are saying.

Straw man. Calvinists aren't saying Paul lied.

 

[Walter2013]

Straw man. Calvinists aren't saying Paul lied.

I know. But they're making Paul a liar.

 

[OzSpen]

I guess this was overlooked. Probably just an accident.

What is Calvinistic about that?

That was not a statement by me BUT A QUESTION by me. This is what I ASKED: God is delaying Christ's return hoping the non-elect will believe?

Pleased note the question mark.

Oz

 

[Hammster]

I know. But they're making Paul a liar.

No. No one is making Paul a liar. There's just many unproven assertions by your Arminian folk that you want us to assume to be true. Then you filter our answers through this assumption and say that we make Paul out to be a liar.

 

[Hammster]

That was not a statement by me BUT A QUESTION by me. This is what I ASKED: God is delaying Christ's return hoping the non-elect will believe?

Pleased note the question mark.

Oz

The question was asked by griff. You should probably follow the convo back to see who said what.

 

[guuila]

That was not a statement by me BUT A QUESTION by me. This is what I ASKED: God is delaying Christ's return hoping the non-elect will believe?

Pleased note the question mark.

Oz

False. You are not making any sense. Let me go ahead and refresh your memory.

Johnnz said here http://www.christianforums.com/t7787859-45/#post64540347:

"Of course not. But then that letter was written to a local Christian community informing them of a pertinent aspect of God's attributes. It was never a theological pronouncement within some Calvin framed doctrine."

I responsed with here http://www.christianforums.com/t7787859-45/#post64540938:

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

Then you said here http://www.christianforums.com/t7787859-46/#post64541294:

"Johnz said nothing of the sort. That's your imposing your Calvinistic worldview on what John wrote. So your response is a red herring."

Then I said here http://www.christianforums.com/t7787859-46/#post64541302:

"What is Calvinistic about what I said?"

Then, 20 pages later, you said:

"That was not a statement by me BUT A QUESTION by me. This is what I ASKED: God is delaying Christ's return hoping the non-elect will believe? "

You never asked that. That was my question to Johnnz. It seems you're having problems keeping up with the discussion. So again, I'll ask you:

What is Calvinistic about my question to Johnnz, which was "So it's your theory that Peter was telling the saints that God is delaying Christ's return hoping the non-elect will believe?"

 

[Jack Terrence]

I know. But they're making Paul a liar.

No sir! Paul preached the resurrection of Christ to the Jewish leadership to prove that He was indeed the Christ, not to tell them that Christ was raised for them.

 

[Walter2013]

No sir! Paul preached the resurrection of Christ to the Jewish leadership to prove that He was indeed the Christ, not to tell them that Christ was raised for them.

Do you have a verse that says the reason Paul preached to the Jewish leadership was to prove that He was indeed the Christ, not to tell them that Christ was raised for them?