Did Paul preach Romans 10:9 to unbelievers?

[Hammster]

'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.

Thanks for finally admitting that.

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.

Why are you changing the subject? We are discussing what Paul preached to the Corinthians. If you think he preached something else to unbelievers, please show it.

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.

So inferring is okay for you, but not for me? Why the double standard?

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

You started the thread. The OP has been addressed. What the switch? Why not defend what you believe instead of attacking that which you don't understand? Like I've said, disproving Calvinism does not make your view correct by default.

 

[Hammster]

Yes.

So why will there be people in Hell? It can't be for punishment, can it?

 

[Hammster]

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.

You've already admitted that you can't prove it.

 

[janxharris]

Thanks for finally admitting that.

Firstly, you didn't respond to this:
'This is what we preach,' says Paul, but you won't do what Paul did will you? Why not?

Paul does not specify believers or unbelievers. He simply says it is preached. Since you accept that LA is not explicitly established then Paul would have needed to qualify those to whom it should not be preached if such was the case.

Why are you changing the subject? We are discussing what Paul preached to the Corinthians. If you think he preached something else to unbelievers, please show it.

Claiming that I have changed subject is a diversion. It is related to the topic:

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.

You didn't respond to it.

So inferring is okay for you, but not for me? Why the double standard?

Again, you don't engage with the point I made. Your inference is demonstrably unjustified but you won't engage with it.

You started the thread. The OP has been addressed. What the switch? Why not defend what you believe instead of attacking that which you don't understand? Like I've said, disproving Calvinism does not make your view correct by default.

Already given you explicit scriptures on the scope of Christ's atonement. You have ZERO scripture for your position and have not supplied any.

 

[janxharris]

You've already admitted that you can't prove it.

I showed you why your is a leap but ours is anything but. You have not refuted my argument.

This was also posted and ignored...again:

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]

So why will there be people in Hell? It can't be for punishment, can it?

Christ's death provides but belief is required. Non-believers throw it back in God's face.

 

[Hammster]

Christ's death provides but belief is required. Non-believers throw it back in God's face.

Where in scripture do you find where unbelief undoes Christ's taking the punishment for our sins?

 

[Hammster]

Firstly, you didn't respond to this:
'This is what we preach,' says Paul, but you won't do what Paul did will you? Why not?

Paul does not specify believers or unbelievers. He simply says it is preached. Since you accept that LA is not explicitly established then Paul would have needed to qualify those to whom it should not be preached if such was the case.

He does actually specify. The use of personal pronouns gives proof of this.

Claiming that I have changed subject is a diversion. It is related to the topic:

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.

You didn't respond to it.

I've established who Paul preached to and the message that he preached. It's in the text. There's no need to use the text to prove limited atonement, especially if it's not in view here. You think that because you incorrectly use it to prove universal atonement that I must also use it to prove particular redemption. Not so.

Again, you don't engage with the point I made. Your inference is demonstrably unjustified but you won't engage with it.

I would like you address your double standard first.

Already given you explicit scriptures on the scope of Christ's atonement. You have ZERO scripture for your position and have not supplied any.

It's kind of sad that you've digressed into this level of argumentation. To say that there is zero scripture is either a lie, or evidence that you are greatly uniformed and are arguing against something which you don't understand. It would be less disingenuous to say that you disagree with the scriptures that Calvinists use. But I really don't know if you could tell us what we believe and why.

 

[Hammster]

I showed you why your is a leap but ours is anything but. You have not refuted my argument.

This was also posted and ignored...again:

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.

The only way it could be two gospels is if you can show that this is the exact type of language Paul used with unbelievers. Let me know when you've done that.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You're implying that this is what he said when he first got there. He doesn't say that in the passage in question.

Seems you're looking for that specific wording, as an "excuse" for not accepting what is so crystal clear. There's no reason to believe your view.

You all need to stop pretending that he does.

Those who embrace limited atonement need to stop pretending that Christ only died for some.

 

[FreeGrace2]

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.

It is clear that the Corinthians mentioned here are those Paul later wrote to. They were his converts. He preached the gospel, and they believed it.

Which is what Paul reminded them of in 1 Cor 15:1-11. Obviously.

But since that does damage to your theology, you'll not believe it regardless. Until eternity.

 

[FreeGrace2]

What did Christ dying for every single human being accomplish?

Great question! His death for the sins of the whole world propitiated God the Father. Or is that not very significant in your theology?

 

[FreeGrace2]

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)

There is really only 2 choices as to what Isaiah meant here.

Either:
1. He was speaking strictly as a Jew, meaning that Christ would die only for Jews. Or,
2. He was speaking as a human being, meaning that Christ would die for all human beings.

I anticipate your response, of providing a "#3". He was speaking as a believer, meaning that Christ would only die for believers.

Good luck with that erroneous view of Isa 53. If that is your "choice", then prove from that text that he was only speaking about believers.

 

[FreeGrace2]

janx said this:
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.

Your question proves that what he posted cannot be refuted. Or you would have. He even invited it. But the invitation was not taken.

Instead, a question of diversion was introduced.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The only way it could be two gospels is if you can show that this is the exact type of language Paul used with unbelievers. Let me know when you've done that.

Now, isn't this interesting! Demanding "exact type of language" when your theology can't provide any kind of language to prove your claims that Christ died ONLY for the elect, or that God chooses who will believe.

Demanding exact type of language for others when one cannot do that himself is hypocritical, to say the least.

 

[janxharris]

Romans 15:20
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.

1 Corinthians 15:1-4
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.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,

Anyone - the gospel that Paul preached, 'where Christ was not know,' is it different to that which he outlines in his Corinthian letter?

 

[janxharris]

The only way it could be two gospels is if you can show that this is the exact type of language Paul used with unbelievers. Let me know when you've done that.

That would be one gospel. I'm confused by your post.

This has yet to be refuted:

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.

 

[Hammster]

Seems you're looking for that specific wording, as an "excuse" for not accepting what is so crystal clear. There's no reason to believe your view.

What view is that? I'm discussing what Paul said here. He doesn't say or imply what you are trying to say that he does.

Those who embrace limited atonement need to stop pretending that Christ only died for some.

Regardless of whether or not limited atonement is true does not make this passage say what you want it to say. If Paul is preaching universal atonement, the language would be clear here.

 

[Hammster]

It is clear that the Corinthians mentioned here are those Paul later wrote to. They were his converts. He preached the gospel, and they believed it.

Which is what Paul reminded them of in 1 Cor 15:1-11. Obviously.

But since that does damage to your theology, you'll not believe it regardless. Until eternity.

Please show me the passage that demonstrates what he preached to them as unbelievers.

 

[Hammster]

There is really only 2 choices as to what Isaiah meant here.

Either:
1. He was speaking strictly as a Jew, meaning that Christ would die only for Jews. Or,
2. He was speaking as a human being, meaning that Christ would die for all human beings.

I anticipate your response, of providing a "#3". He was speaking as a believer, meaning that Christ would only die for believers.

Good luck with that erroneous view of Isa 53. If that is your "choice", then prove from that text that he was only speaking about believers.

Assuming 2 is correct, why are people punished in hell?