What did Paul preach to the Corinthians?

[Johnnz]

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.

That is not at all true. The church at Corinth had many Gentile members. It was to that church Paul wrote on the resurrection. Additionally, and to a church of both Jews and (predominantly?) Gentiles Paul wrote in Romans of Christ's death and resurrection being for all.

John
NZ

 

[OzSpen]

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

I was replying to the person who quoted me. I was replying to griff.

What's your complaint against me in my replying to him? Why must you interject when I'm responding to him and awaiting his response to me?

 

[Hammster]

I was replying to the person who quoted me. I was replying to griff.

What's your complaint against me in my replying to him? Why must you interject when I'm responding to him and awaiting his response to me?

I'm glad you replied. But your reply made no sense. You never said the words that you are claiming you said.

 

[guuila]

I was replying to the person who quoted me. I was replying to griff.

What's your complaint against me in my replying to him? Why must you interject when I'm responding to him and awaiting his response to me?

No need for you continue awaiting my response to you. I responded.

 

[OzSpen]

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

Walter,

Calvinists are spelled Calvinists - not Calvanists - after John Calvin.

 

[Walter2013]

Walter,

Calvinists are spelled Calvinists - not Calvanists - after John Calvin.

Actually, that's a straw man. To be fair, Calvinism existed before John Calvin lived. Calvinism is just a nickname for the "doctrines of grace".

 

[guuila]

I guess this was overlooked...

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?"

 

[OzSpen]

Actually, that's a straw man. To be fair, Calvinism existed before John Calvin lived. Calvinism is just a nickname for the "doctrines of grace".

I was simply correcting your spelling. From where did you gain the spelling Calvanism so that my comment was a straw man? Mine was a genuine statement about your incorrect spelling.

 

[Walter2013]

I was simply correcting your spelling. From where did you gain the spelling Calvanism so that my comment was a straw man? Mine was a genuine statement about your incorrect spelling.

It's called a typo.

 

[Jack Terrence]

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?

Paul and Peter when preaching to the Jewish leadership about Christ's resurrection quoted Psalm 2 showing that the resurrection of Christ was the fulfillment of it. Note that the Psalm indicates that His resurrection represents His coronation as king over His enemies whom He will "dash to pieces like a potter's vessel."

I can't imagine that the Jews could have missed that the apostles were using the Psalm about Christ's resurrection AGAINST them.

 

[janxharris]

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.

Paul preached the gospel to men, including unbelievers. Here is an example:

Acts 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.​

Paul makes his intentions very clear:

Romans 15:20-21
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. Rather, as it is written: “Those who were not told about him will see, and those who have not heard will understand.”​

What is Paul's intention Boxer? He clearly says that he wants those who have not been told about Christ to see and understand. This is an unquestionable fact. It is is also true that he preached the truth that Christ rose from the dead. This was part of the good news he spoke to them of.

You cannot, with good conscience, preach Christ's resurrection if you know that God may not have died for some of the very men you speak to.

 

[janxharris]

Straw man. Calvinists aren't saying Paul lied.

Paul preached the gospel to some of those you say Christ did not die for and would not rise from the dead for. Are you suggesting that each time Paul preached the gospel he made this fact clear to them? Surely, if Paul held to the truth of limited atonement, then to maintain his integrity, this is indeed what he would have done.

...On the third day, Christ rose again from the dead, according to the scriptures. What glorious good news this is indeed folks! Now don't get me wrong people - Christ may not have actually done this for all of you here. For in His eternal decree, God compacted with Himself what He willed to become of each man. For not all are created in equal condition; rather eternal life is foreordained for some men, and eternal damnation for the rest. Still, it is good news for some men...​

Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:11
Whether, then, it is I or they (the apostles), this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

Hammster, please show me where my analysis is wrong.

(By the way, in case some do not know, much of what I suggest Paul may have said is from J. Calvin's 'Institutes of the Christian Religion' - ch. 21, section 5)

 

[Epiphoskei]

Scenario:

Paul walks into a town. He meets Steve. It happens to be the fact, unknown to either Paul or Steve, that Steve is never going to have faith in Christ and therefore is going to hell. You would have us believe that Paul preaches "Christ died for you so that if you believe you will be saved." Nothing bars Steve from salvation except for the fact that it happens to be the case that he will not believe.

I would suggest to you that the actual gospel which Paul would preach runs more along the lines of "If you believe, Christ died for you so that you will be saved." Of course, again, he's not going to believe, but if he would have believed, Christ would have died for him such that he would be saved.

Both gospel formulations have the same basic elements, arranged such that there is salvation for believers and no hope for those who do not believe. The Gospel is good news for the damned only in the sense that God is objectively good, as are all His works. It is of no use or benefit to the damned in either system. The claim that efficacious redemption differs in any meaningful sense from potential atonement concerning the availability of salvation is false, because in both systems all believers are saved, and none who will not believe may be saved, except if they believe (which they never will, because by definition they belong to the category of "people who will not believe"). I can thus come up with only three basic reasons for why you might be going on and on about this as if your gospel held any more good news for those who will be damned than our formulation does.

1) You may be an open theist and do not believe that the categories of "people who will believe" and "people who will not believe" are actual things. There thus can't be a one-to-one correlation between people who won't believe and people who won't be saved.

2) Despite the fact that within non Open Theist doctrine the set of people who will be saved and the set of people who will believe are identical, you feel on some level that if Christ efficaciously redeemed only the believers and did nothing for the unbelievers, someone in the set of unredeemed people might believe, and then - Oops! No redemption for you. Christ didn't die for you, so even if you believe, you're out of luck. Of course, for this to be the case, Christ would have had to have erred by omitting someone who believed from his efficacion of redemption.

3) You're conflating Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement. You quote that "compacted with himself" line of Calvin's a lot. It would help if you used it in the context of the doctrine it applies to. Reformed Theologians like to write their expressions of doctrines in a manner that flows from point to point, showing how all the points work together within the grand scheme of the divine plan, but it is not the case that the points of Calvinism are interdependent. Nothing prevents a Conditional-Election Resistible-Grace Lose-your-Salvation Arminian from holding to Particular Redemption.

If you want to be taught about Calvinism, there are plenty of qualified teachers on this forum, and if you see something which your philosophical precommitments say is a contradiction, we'll be more than happy to help you understand the Reformed position better. However, you want to debate Calvinism. If so, we will expect that you already understand the position well enough to interact with it, and will not need us to articulate your arguments for you. This is why, for the last half-dozen interactions, when you have asked me to address a contradiction, I have simply observed that you haven't established a contradiction. Sometimes, as I just did above, I can guess about what it is that's making you throw out massive non sequiturs as if they were self evident, but in the first place, it's patronizing, and in the second, I'm not going to do your homework for you.

 

[Hammster]

Paul preached the gospel to some of those you say Christ did not die for and would not rise from the dead for. Are you suggesting that each time Paul preached the gospel he made this fact clear to them? Surely, if Paul held to the truth of limited atonement, then to maintain his integrity, this is indeed what he would have done.

...On the third day, Christ rose again from the dead, according to the scriptures. What glorious good news this is indeed folks! Now don't get me wrong people - Christ may not have actually done this for all of you here. For in His eternal decree, God compacted with Himself what He willed to become of each man. For not all are created in equal condition; rather eternal life is foreordained for some men, and eternal damnation for the rest. Still, it is good news for some men...​

Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:11
Whether, then, it is I or they (the apostles), this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

Hammster, please show me where my analysis is wrong.

(By the way, in case some do not know, much of what I suggest Paul may have said is from J. Calvin's 'Institutes of the Christian Religion' - ch. 21, section 5)

Paul wouldn't have had to preach that way. But if he had, he wouldn't have been wrong. However, you are still assuming that he's referring to preaching to non-believers in 1 Cor 15, or that he's quoting himself. This has yet to be proven.

 

[janxharris]

Scenario:

Paul walks into a town. He meets Steve. It happens to be the fact, unknown to either Paul or Steve, that Steve is never going to have faith in Christ and therefore is going to hell. You would have us believe that Paul preaches "Christ died for you so that if you believe you will be saved." Nothing bars Steve from salvation except for the fact that it happens to be the case that he will not believe.

I would suggest to you that the actual gospel which Paul would preach runs more along the lines of "If you believe, Christ died for you so that you will be saved."

Paul never put the gospel in that way. On the contrary, Paul said:

Romans 5:6
You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly.

1 Timothy 1:15
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.​

Please provide a scripture where Paul's gospel is as you have redefined it.

Of course, again, he's not going to believe, but if he would have believed, Christ would have died for him such that he would be saved.

Both gospel formulations have the same basic elements, arranged such that there is salvation for believers and no hope for those who do not believe. The Gospel is good news for the damned only in the sense that God is objectively good, as are all His works.

The fact that God is objectively good, including his works, does make the gospel good news for those you falsely say God determined to eternally damn.

It is of no use or benefit to the damned in either system. The claim that efficacious redemption differs in any meaningful sense from potential atonement concerning the availability of salvation is false, because in both systems all believers are saved, and none who will not believe may be saved, except if they believe (which they never will, because by definition they belong to the category of "people who will not believe").

False. Knowing that someone will not believe is entirely different to foreordaining that someone will not believe. Perhaps you have changed your mind on Calvin's view on election/reprobation?

I can thus come up with only three basic reasons for why you might be going on and on about this as if your gospel held any more good news for those who will be damned than our formulation does.

You theology isn't good news Epiphoskei. Let's not forget that Judas was given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven and sent out as a sheep amongst wolves to proclaim that the kingdom of heaven was near. He was also sent to heal the sick, raise the dead and drive out demons. Some Christians today would feel very much encouraged if they had such a record. But we know what happened to Judas.

1) You may be an open theist and do not believe that the categories of "people who will believe" and "people who will not believe" are actual things. There thus can't be a one-to-one correlation between people who won't believe and people who won't be saved.

I'm not an open theist.

2) Despite the fact that within non Open Theist doctrine the set of people who will be saved and the set of people who will believe are identical, you feel on some level that if Christ efficaciously redeemed only the believers and did nothing for the unbelievers, someone in the set of unredeemed people might believe, and then - Oops! No redemption for you. Christ didn't die for you, so even if you believe, you're out of luck. Of course, for this to be the case, Christ would have had to have erred by omitting someone who believed from his efficacion of redemption.

The difference is stark. Your theology does not accept that any man, without exception, has the wherewithall necessary to believe in Christ. You promote the view that God compacted with Himself what He willed to become of each man.

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!

3) You're conflating Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement. You quote that "compacted with himself" line of Calvin's a lot. It would help if you used it in the context of the doctrine it applies to. Reformed Theologians like to write their expressions of doctrines in a manner that flows from point to point, showing how all the points work together within the grand scheme of the divine plan, but it is not the case that the points of Calvinism are interdependent. Nothing prevents a Conditional-Election Resistible-Grace Lose-your-Salvation Arminian from holding to Particular Redemption.

I do not see this makes any difference.

If you want to be taught about Calvinism, there are plenty of qualified teachers on this forum, and if you see something which your philosophical precommitments say is a contradiction, we'll be more than happy to help you understand the Reformed position better. However, you want to debate Calvinism. If so, we will expect that you already understand the position well enough to interact with it, and will not need us to articulate your arguments for you. This is why, for the last half-dozen interactions, when you have asked me to address a contradiction, I have simply observed that you haven't established a contradiction. Sometimes, as I just did above, I can guess about what it is that's making you throw out massive non sequiturs as if they were self evident, but in the first place, it's patronizing, and in the second, I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Okay, the contradiction in your position seems so obvious to me (and others), but if you really don't see it then I will try to do as you request.

 

[janxharris]

Paul wouldn't have had to preach that way.

Okay - please elaborate on what you have said so far:
Christ died for sinners. You're a sinner.

But if he had, he wouldn't have been wrong.

I'm speechless.

However, you are still assuming that he's referring to preaching to non-believers in 1 Cor 15, or that he's quoting himself. This has yet to be proven.

Actually, it is yet to be proven that this was not what Paul preached to unbelievers. Paul facilitates the assumption I make. He does not do so for your assumption. You seem to think that it was common knowledge amongst the apostles that God elected and reprobated as Calvin suggested and limited His own atonement.

 

[Jack Terrence]

That is not at all true. The church at Corinth had many Gentile members. It was to that church Paul wrote on the resurrection. Additionally, and to a church of both Jews and (predominantly?) Gentiles Paul wrote in Romans of Christ's death and resurrection being for all.

John
NZ

I was speaking about Paul's and Peter's preaching to the Jewish leadership in the Acts. The Arminian premise here is that the apostles preached that the resurrection of Christ was for them. But the apostles did NOT tell them that the resurrection was for them. Furthermore, Paul was very clear in his epistle to the Corinthians that they preached Christ as a "stumbling block" to the Jews, that is, the leadership.

John had said that the leadership had been judicially blinded by God. This judgment was irrevokeable (John 12:39-40). So, it makes no sense that the apostles would preach that the resurrection of Christ was for them.

 

[Hammster]

Okay - please elaborate on what you have said so far:
Christ died for sinners. You're a sinner.

What is there to elaborate? What part is confusing?

I'm speechless.

i know. And your emotional interjections have grown quite tiring.

Actually, it is yet to be proven that this was not what Paul preached to unbelievers. Paul facilitates the assumption I make. He does not do so for your assumption. You seem to think that it was common knowledge amongst the apostles that God elected and reprobated as Calvin suggested and limited His own atonement.

What was know was who Paul's audience was, as he specified in chapter 1. You acknowledge it one one hand, yet dismiss it when you are arguing your point. You also are ignoring common language usage. Like I have said in the past, if I tell my kids, who are saved, that they should remember that Christ died for our sins, there is no way that they would understand me saying that Christ died for the sins of every person who ever lived.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Paul preached the gospel to men, including unbelievers. Here is an example:

Acts 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.
​

Paul makes his intentions very clear:

Romans 15:20-21
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. Rather, as it is written: “Those who were not told about him will see, and those who have not heard will understand.”
​

What is Paul's intention Boxer? He clearly says that he wants those who have not been told about Christ to see and understand. This is an unquestionable fact. It is is also true that he preached the truth that Christ rose from the dead. This was part of the good news he spoke to them of.

You cannot, with good conscience, preach Christ's resurrection if you know that God may not have died for some of the very men you speak to.

I said that Paul did NOT preach that Christ's resurrection was for the Jewish leadership, the word "leadership" being the operative word.

You ignore that in the previopus chapter Paul had just counted the leadership as "unworthy of eternal life."

Paul CLEARLY said that he preached Christ a "stumbling block" to them (1 Corinthians 1:23).

What does it profit your soul to wrench the scriptures from their context? I don't understand what motivates you to do this.

 

[janxharris]

What is there to elaborate? What part is confusing?

...On the third day, Christ rose again from the dead, according to the scriptures. What glorious good news this is indeed folks!....(please continue)...

i know. And your emotional interjections have grown quite tiring.

That you accept that Paul would not have been wrong to preach in such a way is staggering. Okay, you probably wouldn't put it so starkly - but I am still wondering how you would put it...so as not to mislead.

What was know was who Paul's audience was, as he specified in chapter 1. You acknowledge it one one hand, yet dismiss it when you are arguing your point. You also are ignoring common language usage. Like I have said in the past, if I tell my kids, who are saved, that they should remember that Christ died for our sins, there is no way that they would understand me saying that Christ died for the sins of every person who ever lived.

Unless you can provide us with a clear statement from Paul that the gospel he preached to believers was under no circumstances to be preached to unbelievers without modification, then you have no case. Paul preached the gospel to unbelievers in Acts and there is only one gospel. Paul never guarded against misleading unbelievers. You make a huge assumption that this is what he did.