Did Paul preach Romans 10:9 to unbelievers?

[Hammster]

Is this a demand for specific wording? The message is very clear in 1 Cor 15:1- I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.

I'm not demanding specific wording. Just wanting to know where the idea came from. It certainly didn't come from the text.

 

[OzSpen]

Quite the opposite. Your post proved my point. Thanks.

EmSW gave 3 Scriptures to refute your point and all you can say is 'your post proved my point'. Until you demonstrate how it 'proved my point', I'll believe what EmSW wrote. Prove the point is only meaningful when you actually do that by providing the evidence.

You provided zero evidence. You have NOT proved the point.

 

[OzSpen]

Do you ever tire of taking scripture out of context? Do you ever tire of accusing the Lord of being such a terrible shepherd?

I never tire of being honest with what the Scriptures state.

Where have I accused the Lord of being a terrible shepherd? Please provide the exact post # where I stated that.

 

[Hammster]

EmSW gave 3 Scriptures to refute your point and all you can say is 'your post proved my point'. Until you demonstrate how it 'proved my point', I'll believe what EmSW wrote. Prove the point is only meaningful when you actually do that by providing the evidence.

You provided zero evidence. You have NOT proved the point.

What further evidence do you need? Every reference to sheep was in reference to God's people. He did actually confuse me with his wolf comments, I'll admit. But the references were great.

 

[Hammster]

I never tire of being honest with what the Scriptures state.

Where have I accused the Lord of being a terrible shepherd? Please provide the exact post # where I stated that.

The post I quoted. You think a good shepherd would lose a sheep. That's not a good shepherd, by definition.

 

[OzSpen]

What further evidence do you need? Every reference to sheep was in reference to God's people. He did actually confuse me with his wolf comments, I'll admit. But the references were great.

You still haven't answered my comments. You are off and running with your own views. Here is what I wrote:

EmSW gave 3 Scriptures to refute your point and all you can say is 'your post proved my point'. Until you demonstrate how it 'proved my point', I'll believe what EmSW wrote. Prove the point is only meaningful when you actually do that by providing the evidence.

You provided zero evidence. You have NOT proved the point.

Please provide the evidence where I stated that exactly. Otherwise, I have to conclude that you are using a straw man logical fallacy of inventing my view.

 

[OzSpen]

The post I quoted. You think a good shepherd would lose a sheep. That's not a good shepherd, by definition.

Please provide the exact quote where I stated your accusation. Otherwise, it's another straw man fallacy with your invention of what I wrote.

 

[Hammster]

You still haven't answered my comments. You are off and running with your own views. Here is what I wrote:

Please provide the evidence where I stated that exactly. Otherwise, I have to conclude that you are using a straw man logical fallacy of inventing my view.

Conclude what you wish. But my initial premise still stands. Sheep are God's people. He has other names for those who aren't (wolves, goats, dogs, etcetera).

 

[Hammster]

Please provide the exact quote where I stated your accusation. Otherwise, it's another straw man fallacy with your invention of what I wrote.

"It's a Calvinistic theological system that is confused that won't admit that sheep can fall away from the fold through apostasy and be lost"

You think sheep can be lost. That reflects poorly on a shepherd.

 

[OzSpen]

"It's a Calvinistic theological system that is confused that won't admit that sheep can fall away from the fold through apostasy and be lost"

You think sheep can be lost. That reflects poorly on a shepherd.

False accusation. It does not reflect poorly on the shepherd, but it reflects the attitude of the sheep.

 

[OzSpen]

Conclude what you wish. But my initial premise still stands. Sheep are God's people. He has other names for those who aren't (wolves, goats, dogs, etcetera).

That's a begging the question (circular reasoning) fallacy. Since your premise is that sheep are God's people and you conclude that sheep cannot be lost, your conclusion is only a statement of your presupposition - thus a begging the question fallacy.

 

[janxharris]

Last Sunday, and the Sunday before that, and the Sunday before that, etc., my pastors preachED the gospel. And I believED them. But I've been saved for years.

That you affirm that Calvinists preach two gospels is apparent and noted. Your huge assumption is also clear. The only possibility that you are correct is if particular atonement was so established that the need to clarify any misunderstanding over, 'Christ died for our sins.' was unnecessary.

All you have offered is John 10 and 17 but you demonstrated nothing explicit.

 

[janxharris]

The context of his statements are different. He's actually talking about unbelieving Jews in Romans 10.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance.

What Paul received he passed on when he first went to to Corinth.

 

[janxharris]

I'm not demanding specific wording. Just wanting to know where the idea came from. It certainly didn't come from the text.

'THIS is what we preach.'

Paul preached to unbelievers.

You make a huge assumption that the gospel was tweaked for the unbeliever - that somehow it was and is obvious that we are not to say those words of v.3 to unbelievers.

You have NOTHING that establishes particular atonement and nowhere where Paul even bothered to discuss the two gospels you promote.

 

[Hammster]

False accusation. It does not reflect poorly on the shepherd, but it reflects the attitude of the sheep.

Sheep need a shepherd to keep them in line. Read Psalm 23. Who gets the credit?

 

[Hammster]

That's a begging the question (circular reasoning) fallacy. Since your premise is that sheep are God's people and you conclude that sheep cannot be lost, your conclusion is only a statement of your presupposition - thus a begging the question fallacy.

The ideas are separate, but compatible. Each stands on its own.

 

[Hammster]

That you affirm that Calvinists preach two gospels is apparent and noted. Your huge assumption is also clear. The only possibility that you are correct is if particular atonement was so established that the need to clarify any misunderstanding over, 'Christ died for our sins.' was unnecessary.

All you have offered is John 10 and 17 but you demonstrated nothing explicit.

I've not affirmed two gospels.

 

[Hammster]

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance.

What Paul received he passed on when he first went to to Corinth.

He doesn't say that.

 

[Hammster]

'THIS is what we preach.'

Paul preached to unbelievers.

And where does he say that he preached this to unbelieving Corinthians?

You make a huge assumption that the gospel was tweaked for the unbeliever - that somehow it was and is obvious that we are not to say those words of v.3 to unbelievers.

You make a huge assumption that the gospel was tweaked.

You have NOTHING that establishes particular atonement and nowhere where Paul even bothered to discuss the two gospels you promote.

I'm still waiting for your thread that establishes universal atonement. You think that disproving one proves another by default. Why are you unwilling to defend what you believe?

 

[FreeGrace2]

janx said this:
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance.

What Paul received he passed on when he first went to to Corinth.

He doesn't say that.

Yes, Paul actually said and meant that.

Combine that with Acts 18:1-8.
v.1 After these things he left Athens and went to Corinth.

v.8 Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.

In 1 Cor 15:1-11, Paul was simply reminding those Corinthians who had hear and believed his gospel message of what he had preached to them.

It is very clear, but to those whose theology is greatly threatened by his message to unbelievers, will not accept it.