Did Paul preach Romans 10:9 to unbelievers?

[FreeGrace2]

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

Acts 18:8 is where.

 

[Hammster]

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.

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.

You're implying that this is what he said when he first got there. He doesn't say that in the passage in question. You all need to stop pretending that he does.

 

[Hammster]

Acts 18:8 is where.

Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized. (Acts 18:8 ESV)

Nothing here to back up your claim. Perhaps you gave the wrong reference.

 

[janxharris]

He doesn't say that.

Yes he does. What he doesn't say is what you infer - an indirect quote.

 

[janxharris]

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

There is your two gospels. He preaches vv.3-4 to believing Corinthians but only Calvinists object to such a gospel being preached to unbelievers.

Two gospels - you cannot deny it.

You make a huge assumption that the gospel was tweaked.

You have just tweaked it by denying the gospel of vv.3-4 is for unbelievers.

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?

Already provided you with explicit scriptures the like of which you have not. That Christ died for every single human being is well established. It is the reason why we can be sure vv.3-4 were preached to unbelievers else Paul would have written as you do and guarded against it.

Your defence of LA was John 10 and 17 where there is nothing explicit.

 

[Hammster]

Yes he does. What he doesn't say is what you infer - an indirect quote.

I'm not inferring anything. I believe Paul preached what he said he preached to the church he's addressing. You're the one implying that he preached this to unbelieving Corinthians.

 

[janxharris]

You're implying that this is what he said when he first got there. He doesn't say that in the passage in question. You all need to stop pretending that he does.

Since you have ZERO scriptures that establish limited atonement, where does Paul speak of not preaching vv.3-4 to unbelievers?

Again, your establishment of two gospels is noted.

 

[Hammster]

There is your two gospels. He preaches vv.3-4 to believing Corinthians but only Calvinists object to such a gospel being preached to unbelievers.

Two gospels - you cannot deny it.



You have just tweaked it by denying the gospel of vv.3-4 is for unbelievers.



Already provided you with explicit scriptures the like of which you have not. That Christ died for every single human being is well established. It is the reason why we can be sure vv.3-4 were preached to unbelievers else Paul would have written as you do and guarded against it.

Your defence of LA was John 10 and 17 where there is nothing explicit.

What did Christ dying for every single human being accomplish?

 

[Hammster]

Since you have ZERO scriptures that establish limited atonement, where does Paul speak of not preaching vv.3-4 to unbelievers?

Again, your establishment of two gospels is noted.

Even if you're correct, that doesn't make the passage say what you think it says. But I think you are starting to see that.

 

[janxharris]

What did Christ dying for every single human being accomplish?

The gospel is what. Verses 3-4 constitutes the gospel. Paul and the apostles preached it.

 

[janxharris]

Even if you're correct, that doesn't make the passage say what you think it says. But I think you are starting to see that.

Again, you assert two gospels.

1. vv.3-4 is the gospel.
2. Paul preached it to believers
3. You say it was not preached to unbelievers.

Two gospels.

I am starting to see what?

 

[Hammster]

The gospel is what. Verses 3-4 constitutes the gospel. Paul and the apostles preached it.

What about this?

We all went astray like sheep; we all have turned to our own way; and the Lord has punished Him for the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:6 HCSB)

 

[Hammster]

Again, you assert two gospels.

1. vv.3-4 is the gospel.
2. Paul preached it to believers
3. You say it was not preached to unbelievers.

Two gospels.

I am starting to see what?

You are seeing that you cannot demonstrate from the text that Paul says he preached this to the Corinthians when they were unbelievers.

 

[janxharris]

What about this?

We all went astray like sheep; we all have turned to our own way; and the Lord has punished Him for the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:6 HCSB)

Okay.

 

[janxharris]

You are seeing that you cannot demonstrate from the text that Paul says he preached this to the Corinthians when they were unbelievers.

No, and I have shown you why.

You have agreed that vv.3-4 is the gospel.
You know that Paul preached it to believers.
You say it was not preached to unbelievers.

That is two gospels.

I invite you to refute the above.

 

[janxharris]

You are seeing that you cannot demonstrate from the text that Paul says he preached this to the Corinthians when they were unbelievers.

'This is what we preach,' says Paul, but you won't do what Paul did will you? Why not?

Does Paul say, 'this is what we preach to unbelievers'? No he doesn't. Does Paul or anyone else establish limited atonement such that no qualification of those to whom vv.3-4 should be preached need be made? No.

The slight inference we make is justified. You have no grounds for your inference since you and Calvinists in general admit that limited atonement is inferred.

You position is demonstrably untenable. I challenge you to refute it with clear arguments.

 

[Hammster]

Okay.

Okay? Is this true, or not? Did the Father punish the Son for everyone's iniquity?

 

[Hammster]

No, and I have shown you why.

You have agreed that vv.3-4 is the gospel.
You know that Paul preached it to believers.
You say it was not preached to unbelievers.

That is two gospels.

I invite you to refute the above.

Please show where Paul used these words with unbelievers. There's messages of his in Acts. It should be easy.

 

[janxharris]

Okay? Is this true, or not? Did the Father punish the Son for everyone's iniquity?

Yes.

 

[janxharris]

Please show where Paul used these words with unbelievers. There's messages of his in Acts. It should be easy.

1 Corinthians 15.

This was also posted:
You have agreed that vv.3-4 is the gospel.
You know that Paul preached it to believers.
You say it was not preached to unbelievers.

That is two gospels.

I invite you to refute the above.