Was 'Christ died for our sins' preached to the unsaved?

[rick357]

Part of this is all men are allready condemed justly. God chose the foolishness of preaching....but the act of preaching does not save it is a heart that God knows will turn to him that has ears to hear...i.e. If a man is born in a remote place where no gospel has gone before...if God knows he is his then he will either draw him to a place where gospel is available....or draw a servent of his to that place.
It is not men that choose God but God that chooses men...and that by foreknowledge of their acceptance when he comes to them...He is able to save his people.

 

[A New Dawn]

That you think the so called non-elect cannot understand such words is astonishing. And your appeal to Isaiah 6:9-10 has already been addressed - Judas Iscariot, someone assumed by Calvinists to be of the non-elect, was NOT described by Jesus as Isaiah describes, but as the very opposite.

Whatever you or I might say on this matter cannot take away the fact that Paul is telling all that he preaches to of Christ's death for their sins - so Paul does believe this to be true.

Your acceptance that 1 Cor. 15:11 is with regard to the unsaved must mean that you do so too. That you would, whilst maintaining that Christ did not die for all, appears to be an untenable and extremely contradictory position. Potentially, you might say 'Christ died for our sins' but then be forced, for clarification's sake, to explain that Christ did not die for all.

The only way your position on my position could be of any consequence would be if everyone who preached the gospel knew who the elect are. If that were the case, you would be right. It would be wrong to preach to someone who was not elect that Jesus died for their sins. However, as I said earlier, several times, neither Paul nor any other preacher knows who the elect are, AND, the non-elect don't care. They don't listen, they don't hear and they don't understand. They are altogether unprofitable. The preaching is nothing but foolishness in their ears. (This is all scriptural, so I'm not sure why you are having a hard time with this.)

 

[nobdysfool]

I believe that those that never hear may still be saved. Sending such persons to eternal separation from God just because they did not hear would be unconscionable.

Please provide us with scriptural support for such an outrageous statement. You are, in effect, accusing God of dealing deceitfully with those who have never heard the Gospel. I would hope that you would know better than that. But, you made the statement as a point of what you believe, so now you need to show it from Scripture, or admit that you erred in making this statement.

Which will it be?
[/size][/font]

Ignoring this will not make it go away. This is a serious error here.

 

[Hammster]

The only way your position on my position could be of any consequence would be if everyone who preached the gospel knew who the elect are. If that were the case, you would be right. It would be wrong to preach to someone who was not elect that Jesus died for their sins. However, as I said earlier, several times, neither Paul nor any other preacher knows who the elect are, AND, the non-elect don't care. They don't listen, they don't hear and they don't understand. They are altogether unprofitable. The preaching is nothing but foolishness in their ears. (This is all scriptural, so I'm not sure why you are having a hard time with this.)

I would only respond with my argument to jan that there's no record of the apostles using this language to evangelize. It was always their concern that the hearers believe in Christ as God, evidenced by the miracles and His resurrection. After one believes in Christ (not believe things about Christ, which jan thinks is salvific), then you can explain that Christ took the punishment for our sins.

Finnyism has worked its way into modern evangelicalism.

 

[janxharris]

Please provide us with scriptural support for such an outrageous statement. You are, in effect, accusing God of dealing deceitfully with those who have never heard the Gospel. I would hope that you would know better than that. But, you made the statement as a point of what you believe, so now you need to show it from Scripture, or admit that you erred in making this statement.

Which will it be?
[/SIZE][/FONT]

Acts 17:26-27
From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.

rick357 has posted an answer too.

Please also respond to the OP.

 

[janxharris]

Paul tell the unbelieving elect that Christ died for their sins. The rest didn't hear, they didn't believe and they didn't care. The only ones who cared were the ones who responded. THEY were the ones being preached to because Christ only came to save those whom the Father had given him.

Proclaiming 'Christ died for our sins' to those who will never believe is what it is. They (those who choose not to believe) know that they are included in Paul's use of 'our'.

 

[janxharris]

It isn't an example. I think you know this. The context of verse 3 is to believers. He never says that he preached that to unbelievers. Never. And no example anywhere. You ignore this.

Does passing on what he received to only those that came to believe what he told them constitute 'in the foremost'? Wouldn't it rather constitute 'of secondary importance'? Your view is that Paul received A, told them B, and only after conversion affirmed A. That is not, 'For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance'.

I'm the only one who is. You, as I keep staring, are making one word mean something else.

Making it mean what?

 

[janxharris]

So sending missionaries is really a bad idea. It's best that someone NOT hear the gospel and be saved, than to hear it and possibly reject it.

Paul really screwed a lot of folks.

?

Telling people about Christ is a good thing, and it is good news. Paul spoke genuinely or not in Acts 17:26-27?

 

[janxharris]

The only way your position on my position could be of any consequence would be if everyone who preached the gospel knew who the elect are. If that were the case, you would be right. It would be wrong to preach to someone who was not elect that Jesus died for their sins. However, as I said earlier, several times, neither Paul nor any other preacher knows who the elect are, AND, the non-elect don't care. They don't listen, they don't hear and they don't understand. They are altogether unprofitable. The preaching is nothing but foolishness in their ears. (This is all scriptural, so I'm not sure why you are having a hard time with this.)

If you are referring to 1 Cor 2:6ff., then that is to mature believers.

v.14
The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

This is talking about such a message of wisdom for mature believers that unbelievers cannot accept. Look, however, at vv. 1-5:

And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.

Paul preached 'Christ crucified'. You can't do so to whomever if Christ did not die for all. It's implicit in Paul's words.

 

[janxharris]

[/SIZE][/FONT]

Ignoring this will not make it go away. This is a serious error here.

You have ignored the op thus far.

 

[Hammster]

Does passing on what he received to only those that came to believe what he told them constitute 'in the foremost'? Wouldn't it rather constitute 'of secondary importance'? Your view is that Paul received A, told them B, and only after conversion affirmed A. That is not, 'For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance'.

I'm the only one who is. You, as I keep staring, are making one word mean something else.[/QUOTE]

Making it mean what?[/QUOTE]

No, it constitutes in the foremost for believers. That's where our assurance comes from, which Arminians don't even have, ironically.

And you are turning "our" into "everyone".

 

[Hammster]

?

Telling people about Christ is a good thing, and it is good news. Paul spoke genuinely or not in Acts 17:26-27?

It's not good, according to your thinking. If they hear the gospel and reject it, they are doomed. If they don't hear it, they are better off. That's your stance. Don't deny it.

 

[janxharris]

No, it constitutes in the foremost for believers. That's where our assurance comes from, which Arminians don't even have, ironically.

And you are turning "our" into "everyone".

So Paul receives A, preaches B and only affirms A to converts? That is not 'in the foremost', 'of first importance' or 'at the first'.

What did Paul say to the following Corinthians? A or B? Also, they were unbelievers weren't they?

1 Cor 2:1-5
And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.

 

[janxharris]

It's not good, according to your thinking. If they hear the gospel and reject it, they are doomed. If they don't hear it, they are better off. That's your stance. Don't deny it.

?

 

[janxharris]

No, it constitutes in the foremost for believers. That's where our assurance comes from, which Arminians don't even have, ironically.

And you are turning "our" into "everyone".

I believe that Paul's wording remains a problem for your theology. If your view is correct, that Paul passed on 'in the foremost for believers', then what he passed on to then as unbelievers was different and not exactly what he received.

 

[janxharris]

No, it constitutes in the foremost for believers. That's where our assurance comes from, which Arminians don't even have, ironically.

And you are turning "our" into "everyone".

I also think you have a problem with the fact that what was passed includes statements that could be spoken to unbelievers, which means Paul groups that which you say is only to be spoken to believers with them.

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, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

 

[nobdysfool]

You have ignored the op thus far.

And you have ignored the gigantic inconsistencies in your own theology, which have come to light in the things you've said. They won't go away. I pointed a huge one out, and your only response is "you aren't dealing with the OP...".

It actually has bearing on the OP. Is Jesus the only way to the Father (and Heaven)? You flat-out stated that those who have never heard the Gospel will get in another way. That contradicts Jesus' own words.

 

[janxharris]

And you have ignored the gigantic inconsistencies in your own theology, which have come to light in the things you've said. They won't go away. I pointed a huge one out, and your only response is "you aren't dealing with the OP...".

It actually has bearing on the OP. Is Jesus the only way to the Father (and Heaven)? You flat-out stated that those who have never heard the Gospel will get in another way. That contradicts Jesus' own words.

I answered you http://www.christianforums.com/t7843406-7/#post66405241 and you still have not dealt with the OP which is over a week old.

I have not said there is another way. Moses knew of Christ. Perhaps you don't take Paul's words as genuine in Acts 17:26-27?

 

[janxharris]

It actually has bearing on the OP. Is Jesus the only way to the Father (and Heaven)? You flat-out stated that those who have never heard the Gospel will get in another way. That contradicts Jesus' own words.

The OP does not ask if Jesus is the only way.

 

[janxharris]

What are unbelievers to make of the fact that Hammster denies that 'Christ died for our sins' was proclaimed to whomever, but A New Dawn does not?