What did Paul preach to the Corinthians?

[guuila]

Eh?

My bad?

Sorry. American slang.

 

[janxharris]

What does this have anything to do with you quoting me? I was responding to harrisrose77 who contradicted herself by saying I don't have the ability to understand freewill.

It has everything to do with the thread. You don't have to respond.

If you are going to respond to something I actually said, maybe try going back to 2 Corinthians 5 where I gave a refutation of your view.

Right - I haven't responded yet.

 

[janxharris]

So you're saying that it is possible for someone to be saved that God knows will not be saved?

I'm not sure how that works.

They had the opportunity - same as you and me. Good news.

Tell me, does God's love equate to compacting with himself what he willed to become of each man? Does God's love equate to not creating all men in equal condition - such that some are foreordained to eternal damnation?

Isn't hatred more appropriate?

And please don't play the 'justly condemned for their wickedness card'. They have no access to salvation, remember? Jesus didn't die for them. They can't have faith in Him - right?

An astonishing view of God for a Christian to take.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

It has everything to do with the thread. You don't have to respond.

Right - I haven't responded yet.

Okay, good... however when you quote me it usually means you are responding. If you aren't responding, don't quote.

 

[Hammster]

They had the opportunity - same as you and me. Good news.

Tell me, does God's love equate to compacting with himself what he willed to become of each man? Does God's love equate to not creating all men in equal condition - such that some are foreordained to eternal damnation?

Isn't hatred more appropriate?

And please don't play the 'justly condemned for their wickedness card'. They have no access to salvation, remember? Jesus didn't die for them. They can't have faith in Him - right?

An astonishing view of God for a Christian to take.

That Jesus would suffer horrendously for sin, just to have some people still be punished by His Father for the same sins He paid for is an astonishing view of God for a Christian to take.

 

[janxharris]

Okay, good... however when you quote me it usually means you are responding. If you aren't responding, don't quote.

Okay.

 

[janxharris]

That Jesus would suffer horrendously for sin, just to have some people still be punished by His Father for the same sins He paid for is an astonishing view of God for a Christian to take.

You are obviously, understandably, uncomfortable with your own theology. For, in truth, there is no answer to the awful prospect that TULIP encapsulates.

Okay, I don't have complete answers for the point you make...

I would say it is possible that those that refuse to put their faith in Jesus are guilty of the unforgivable sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Also, we know that the whole of creation was cursed at the fall:

Romans 5
17a For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man

So when John says in 1:29 The lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world - it is not just the the sins of people, but the curse aswell.

 

[harrisrose77]

I am not talking to you anymore because you lack the ability to directly respond to a quote. Bye.

First off, you have no right to tell me what I don't have the ability to do. And second, I simply REFUSED to give you the answer you want to hear, because I chose to put it that we have the ability to choose to believe. Of course God knows who will believe, even as He knitted us within the wombs of our Mother's, but He is a merciful God, and has made His offer of Salvation to all who are born of the flesh.God's Atonement for sin is to all, irrespective of who God allowed to be born. Lucifer choose Himself, and prideful iniquity was bred. Judas, again chose himself, by the seduction of Satan, by greed for money, and certain men, even of the 'cloth', choose themselves, over God's Will. I also agree, that God foreknew some who would serve Him from the womb, such as the OT prophets, and those who He knew would be serving Him faithfully.
And I apologise for my response to your opinion of my ability...or rather inability.

 

[Hammster]

You are obviously, understandably, uncomfortable with your own theology. For, in truth, there is no answer to the awful prospect that TULIP encapsulates.

Okay, I don't have complete answers for the point you make...

I would say it is possible that those that refuse to put their faith in Jesus are guilty of the unforgivable sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Also, we know that the whole of creation was cursed at the fall:

Romans 5
17a For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man

So when John says in 1:29 The lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world - it is not just the the sins of people, but the curse aswell.

So, what you are saying is that people who are in hell are there because they committed the unforgivable sin?

 

[harrisrose77]

You are obviously, understandably, uncomfortable with your own theology. For, in truth, there is no answer to the awful prospect that TULIP encapsulates.

Okay, I don't have complete answers for the point you make...

I would say it is possible that those that refuse to put their faith in Jesus are guilty of the unforgivable sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Also, we know that the whole of creation was cursed at the fall:

Romans 5
17a For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man

So when John says in 1:29 The lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world - it is not just the the sins of people, but the curse aswell.

 

[guuila]

First off, you have no right to tell me what I don't have the ability to do. And second, I simply REFUSED to give you the answer you want to hear, because I chose to put it that we have the ability to choose to believe. Of course God knows who will believe, even as He knitted us within the wombs of our Mother's, but He is a merciful God, and has made His offer of Salvation to all who are born of the flesh.God's Atonement for sin is to all, irrespective of who God allowed to be born. Lucifer choose Himself, and prideful iniquity was bred. Judas, again chose himself, by the seduction of Satan, by greed for money, and certain men, even of the 'cloth', choose themselves, over God's Will. I also agree, that God foreknew some who would serve Him from the womb, such as the OT prophets, and those who He knew would be serving Him faithfully.
And I apologise for my response to your opinion of my ability...or rather inability.

What is the difference between you and a person God knows won't believe? What was it that made you believe the gospel while they think it's stupid?

 

[Epiphoskei]

A summary:

1 Corinthians 15:11
Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

To maintain consistency, Calvinists must assume that that which Paul and the other apostles preached was:
A) only intended for believers;
B) only intended for the elect;
C) a modification of the gospel outlined in vv. 3b-4.

A) cannot be true because Paul never guarded against it - on the contrary, it was his ambition:

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.”

In Acts there are many examples of the apostles preaching to unbelievers. Here is just one:

Acts 8:9-13
Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city 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.

Paul allows for the possibility that the gospel he specifies in vv. 3b-4 might be heard by unbelievers in the Corinthian church:

1 Corinthians 15:1-2
Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

Paul also says in v.11, that 'this is what you believed.'

B) cannot be true because we do not know who the elect are.

Finally, C) cannot be true because Paul never even hints at such a modification.

Whilst Calvinism demands that the gospel outlined by Paul in vv. 3b-4 is not to be preached to unbelievers, Paul himself had no such concerns.

You do realize that if I preach to unbelievers "Christ has saved for himself a particular people, buying them with his own blood," and then preach to believers "Christ has purchased us with his blood," I'm saying exactly the same thing, yes?

Changing antecedents when changing audiences is not a big deal.

 

[Jack Terrence]

I would say it is possible that those that refuse to put their faith in Jesus are guilty of the unforgivable sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

Well, you have just identified the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit with the rejection of Christ. About the rejection of Himself Jesus said, "If you believe not that I am you shall die in your sins (plural)." If they die in their sins, then their sins were not taken away.

Logic 101

 

[guuila]

I guess this was overlooked.

You haven't responded to my argument.

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).

Okay. Not sure why you were telling us 100% of humanity is called earlier.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Every man, from the perspective of when they are alive, has access to eternal life.

Then explain why it is only those who are within the gates of the city who are invited to come and drink of the water of life. There are others who are kept out of the city altogether. Revelation 22

 

[janxharris]

I would model an evangelical outreach to unbelievers based on what the apostles told people to do to be saved.
Did they anywhere directly tell them that Christ died for their sins?
Perhaps a review of what they really said to the unsaved could settle the matter.

1 Corinthians 15:11
Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

What is 'this':

1 Corinthians 15:3-4
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

 

[janxharris]

Here is how they told them to be saved:

29 Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.

Let's be clear, Paul and Silas told the Jailer what he must do to be saved because Paul and Silas knew that all men without exception have the wherewithal to do so. If they (Paul and Silas) believed that Christ's death did not make provision for all men - that it was limited to a select group - then his response to the jailer was recklessly remiss.

Christ may not have died for the jailer, but, even so, I'll tell him to do that which he could find to be an impossibility.

Under your theology, Paul and Silas' words were woefully disingenuous.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Let's be clear, Paul and Silas told the Jailer what he must do to be saved because Paul and Silas knew that all men without exception have the wherewithal to do so.

Where does it say that Paul and Silas knew that all men had the wherewithal? Why would Paul say that the God of this age has blinded their minds (2 Cor. 4:4)?

If they (Paul and Silas) believed that Christ's death did not make provision for all men - that it was limited to a select group - then his response to the jailer was recklessly remiss.

No so! Being prophets of God they may have known that God had prepared the jailer's heart to receive their message and believe. God revealed to Paul that the Gentiles would listen (Acts 28:28).

Your theology is based on invalid inference. You keep repeating the same things over and over again forcing us to repeat ourselves.

 

[janxharris]

This is not at all how first person plural pronouns work. A first person plural pronoun is used to refer to any group of people including the speaker and any quantity of additional parties on whose behalf the speaker is speaking. That's it. Put in more technical terms, "our" can be inclusive: "you and I," or exclusive, "I and he/she/it/they."

If I have a wife and a house, and someone asks me what color our house is, and I say "our house is red," I haven't just given the listener ownership in our house. "our" meant "mine and my wife's," not "mine and yours." Whether or not "our" is inclusive of the audience is contextually determined, not grammatically determined.

Your analysis of first-person plural pronouns is correct but your example of usage does not assist regarding 1 Cor 15. Paul says in verse 11 that 'this is what we preach' and the antecedent of 'this' is the gospel he outlines in verses 3-4. Not only that, but Paul says 'this is what you (the Corinthians ) believed.'

Moreover, you can't even establish from this verse that Paul said the exact words "Christ died for our sins" to any unbelievers at any time. Paul wrote I Corinthians to the Church at Corinth. If context indicates that "our" is inclusive of the audience, the audience of I Corinthians are Corinthian Christians. These are the only people we can assume belong to an inclusive first person plural pronoun. Accordingly, lacking evidence that something is a direct quote, it can't be assumed that such a word was used when the audience was different.

See above.

Paul certainly allows for the possibility that unbelievers are in the Church. That is a normal assumption to make; it is a common sense approach.

v. 2
By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

Return to the house example. Say I've been asked if my house is for sale. I say "No, this house is not for sale." My wife asks me what I was talking about with the gentleman who asked about whether my house is for sale. I say "I told him our house is not for sale."

In this example, I gave my first statement to my primary audience - the man, and then I gave a statement about my statement to my secondary audience - my wife. When I used "our" to talk to my secondary audience, I was speaking inclusively of only my secondary audience. "Our" was not necessarily the pronoun I used in the primary statement - indeed, I didn't use a personal pronoun at all, but the demonstrative "this."

This is all correct, but, again, it does not address specifically the issue regarding 1 Cor 15. Paul is reminding them of the gospel he had preached to them and tells them that 'this is what we preach'.

So had Paul said "Christ died for our sins" to people whose sins have not been forgiven via the vicarious atonement of Christ, there's no reason why this can't be taken the same way as had he said "Christ died for the sins of me and of the rest of the Church," exclusive of some in the audience;

Paul's deception would be noted.

and it is not even clear that he said that, since we can only be sure the word "our" appeared in the text of Corinthians itself, and not in the earlier dialogues being reported in Corinthians.

We can be sure that it ('our') appears in what Paul preaches because he said, 'this is what we preach'.

 

[janxharris]

So, what you are saying is that people who are in hell are there because they committed the unforgivable sin?

I said it is possible.