What did Paul preach to the Corinthians?

[harrisrose77]

What did this have to do with my post that you were supposedly "responding" to? This doesn't address anything that I said.

Sorry, you are right. I meant to send it to the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] boxer chappy.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Indeed, sorry [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], I forgot to split the hairs. I'm sure the less contentious, would know what I meant.

So you admit then that the Cross is NOT available to all?

Btw, your post has been reported.

 

[guuila]

Sorry, you are right. I meant to send it to the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] boxer chappy.

Strange.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Strange.

Strange indeed.

 

[harrisrose77]

So you admit then that the Cross is NOT available to all?

Btw, your post has been reported.

Meaooow!

 

[Jack Terrence]

Meaooow!

I didn't make the connection at first. It was still a poor choice of words on your part. Anyway, I am doing away with the avatar.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Indeed, sorry *****, I forgot to split the hairs. I'm sure the less contentious, would know what I meant.

Okay, let's try again. So you concede that the cross is not "available" to all?

 

[guuila]

Well, that was fun.

 

[harrisrose77]

Okay, let's try again. So you concede that the cross is not "available" to all?

Oh, where's your cat gone?
Sorry boxer. I was really looking forward to a cat fight.
Lighten up guys, "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy."

 

[Jack Terrence]

Oh, where's your cat gone?
Sorry boxer.

I thought I would try a new avatar that was more light hearted and fun loving. So I found the boxing cat and decided to use it. Then I went offline for a while. When I came back online I saw that you had called me a *****.

I had forgotten that I had changed my avatar and so I did not make the connection between your calling me that with the avatar. Anyway, I decided to do away with it.

Hopefully Hammster will make sure that you do not receive an infraction. I am sorry too.

 

[harrisrose77]

I thought I would try a new avatar that was more light hearted and fun loving. So I found the boxing cat and decided to use it. Then I went offline for a while. When I came back online I saw that you had called me a *****.

I had forgotten that I had changed my avatar and so I did not make the connection between your calling me that with the avatar. Anyway, I decided to do away with it.

Hopefully Hammster will make sure that you do not receive an infraction. I am sorry too.

Ah,..friends?

 

[guuila]

I thought I would try a new avatar that was more light hearted and fun loving. So I found the boxing cat and decided to use it. Then I went offline for a while. When I came back online I saw that you had called me a *****.

I had forgotten that I had changed my avatar and so I did not make the connection between your calling me that with the avatar. Anyway, I decided to do away with it.

Hopefully Hammster will make sure that you do not receive an infraction. I am sorry too.

I'll admit I thought the same thing when I saw it, and then I saw your avatar. At first I thought "Wow they must be a lot more aggressive across the pond."

 

[janxharris]

That's irrelevant since Paul didn't say that to a group of unbelievers. He was writing to believers.

I'll ask again:
Would you say to a crowd of unbelievers:
On the third day, Christ rose again from the dead, according to the scriptures. What glorious good news this is indeed folks!

and then not proceed to qualify what you have just said? If you would actually qualify it, how would you word it?

Not at all. If they repent of their sins and believe on the Lord Jesus, they will be saved. How is that false hope?

You told them that, 'Christ died for sinners...you're a sinner'. They think Christ died for them. They think that they can put their faith in Christ - but we all know that, if forced to, you would have to admit that it is possible that Christ did not die for them and they have no access to salvation.

Hammster - this gospel that you preach - though you may not intend it to be - is disingenuous.

I'll try this again. If I tell my believing kids that we need to remember that Christ died for our sins, why would they believe that I've changed my view and now believe that Christ died for everyone?

And the scripture where Paul, or anyone for that matter, guards against this is?

Remember, Paul said 'this is what we preach, and this is what you believed in.'

 

[janxharris]

No, I wouldn't.

Your theology demands that you in fact do correct me. Why do you disagree?

 

[janxharris]

Now, let's say that I talk to him, we discuss sin, he understands that he's a sinner, and I tell him that Christ paid the penalty for sin on the cross for those who believe, and if he believes then he can have forgiveness of sin, do you correct me?

Yes - Christ takes away the sin of the world.

 

[janxharris]

Even if Christ did die for him, if God knows he'll never believe, how is it good news to him?

It is good news that every man has access to eternal life.

 

[janxharris]

Janxharris,

Can you please further explain your view of the atonement? You give little tidbits but never really draw it out specifically. The reason I ask is because you have given conflicting statements over the course of this thread. The above statement seems to be advocating that Christ's atonement and our faith/refusal of that atonement all happen eternally at once. That's the only idea I can really gather. I don't really understand what that entails, so if you could explain that would be great. Further, as an inconsistency, I don't see how you can deny an order [at least logically] when you say that "Christ's atonement for all and our faith/refusal" of that atonement are both existing at the same moment, and yet, the very statement implies chronology, since we cannot accept/refuse the atonement until it has actually be made.

The atonement for sin that Christ made on the cross was available for every single person. That is good news.

God's eternal 'now' relates simultaneously to every point of time in creation - past, present and future. Christ's atonement on the cross and a man's acceptance/refusal occur eternally 'now' for God.

God compacting with himself what he willed to become of each man is not good news.

 

[janxharris]

You say that God calls everyone, but Paul says "...those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified." (Romans 8:30 ESV)

So if God calls everyone, and those who are called are justified, is it not logical to conclude everyone is justified, thus you're a universalist? Or does Scripture contradict itself? Or are you just inconsistent??

?????????????????????????????????????

You assume that the 'called' are unbelievers unto belief.

Romans 8
26In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.

28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.​

In verse 28, Paul is talking about believers called to a 'his purpose'. Paul was talking about believers in the previous verses, and how the Spirit intercedes 'for God's people' even when they do not know what to pray for. He continues this theme in v. 28. In v. 30 the 'called' follows those that God foreknew and predestined (to be conformed to Christ-likeness).

 

[janxharris]

I did not say that. This annoys me because I have said over and over again that Paul preached that the remission of sins and the promises are for the children of the patriarchs. It was THEM whom the apostles called to salvation. Not all men are the children of the patriarchs.

Galatians 3:7
Understand, then, that those with faith are children of Abraham.

I have discussed this before and will not repeat myself. Regardless, Paul told them that he would have nothing more to do with them. So how can you say that Paul preached that Christ's resurrection was for them after that? You offered his preaching in the synagogue after that as proof that Christ's resurrection is for all men. How can this be true if Paul had just determined that he would have nothing more to do with some men?

Where does is say that Paul would have nothing more to do with them?

 

[janxharris]

If God foreknows that they will not believe in the sense that you define foreknowledge, then why would He offer them the Gospel at all? The only reason I can think of is to increase the severity of their sin.

God's foreknowledge is based on his knowledge of the very event in which they were offered salvation. If they were never offered, then how could they reject it?