• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

What did Paul preach to the Corinthians?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Johnnz

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2004
14,082
1,003
84
New Zealand
✟119,551.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
The context of Paul's statement is a church where some had not grown beyond recognised societal markers. Social status, 'doing the right thing' friendships based on mutual obligations and the obligations of sponsorship were values that had nothing to do with a Lord who suffered and died a shameful, criminal's death. That was at the heart of 'Christ crucified' that Paul preached and demonstrated in his own life.

John
NZ
 
Upvote 0

janxharris

Veteran
Jun 10, 2010
7,562
55
Essex, UK
Visit site
✟43,897.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
It's accessible to all who want it.

Okay, but this chap insists you give him a 'yes', 'no' answer.
Is it true that some in this crowd that you preach to may be without access to the very gospel you speak of? True or false mister preacher?
 
Upvote 0

janxharris

Veteran
Jun 10, 2010
7,562
55
Essex, UK
Visit site
✟43,897.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
The context of Paul's statement is a church where some had not grown beyond recognised societal markers. Social status, 'doing the right thing' friendships based on mutual obligations and the obligations of sponsorship were values that had nothing to do with a Lord who suffered and died a shameful, criminal's death. That was at the heart of 'Christ crucified' that Paul preached and demonstrated in his own life.

John
NZ

Thanks. I am not sure of your point.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

janxharris

Veteran
Jun 10, 2010
7,562
55
Essex, UK
Visit site
✟43,897.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Does this whole post actually have a point to it?

Calvinists insist that Christ did not die for all men; rather He only died for the elect, but Paul is reminding the Corinthians of the gospel the he had preached to them which was that 'Christ died for our sins'.

Paul told non-believers that Christ died for our sins. We can only conclude that Christ died for all men without exception.

I hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Epiphoskei

Senior Veteran
Jul 7, 2007
6,854
689
✟33,057.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Calvinists insist that Christ did not die for all men; rather He only died for the elect, but Paul is reminding the Corinthians of the gospel the he had preached to them which was that 'Christ died for our sins'.

Paul told non-believers that Christ died for our sins. We can only conclude that Christ died for all men without exception.

I hope this helps.

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.

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.

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."

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; 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.
 
Upvote 0

Johnnz

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2004
14,082
1,003
84
New Zealand
✟119,551.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Thanks. I am not sure of your point.

My point is that Paul decried status in his presentation of the Gospel,, based on Christ's example. he made a similar argument in Phillipians in his great passage on Christ laying aside all divine prerogatives.

John
NZ
 
Upvote 0

Epiphoskei

Senior Veteran
Jul 7, 2007
6,854
689
✟33,057.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Of course the easiest way to address this objection is to note that even if Christ "died for" everyone, it's necessarily a different kind of "dying for" than the efficacious substitution of his own flesh for ours that saved us. That didn't happen for everyone, because universal efficacy is universalism. Thus, this form of "dying for" everyone is not the atonement, and could theoretically be granted without contradicting limited atonement. I'm not saying it should be granted that Paul is writing about some non-atoning thing Christ did for everyone in this passage, but if He were, atonement is still limited because he's not talking about it.

Atonement is by definition of terms redemption, a man's very salvation itself, his reconciliation to the Father through the death of Christ upon whose body all of his past, present, and future sins, the only reasons he could possibly be justly damned, irrevocably ceased to exist, rendering him as guiltless as the son of God. The Bible is explicit that only some humans are redeemed. Anything Christ did for all men isn't atonement and is thus somewhat secondary (dare I say tangential) to the Calvinist-Arminian disputes.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,553
709
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟140,373.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Okay, but this chap insists you give him a 'yes', 'no' answer.
Is it true that some in this crowd that you preach to may be without access to the very gospel you speak of? True or false mister preacher?
True, says mister TULIP preacher.;)
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,553
709
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟140,373.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Yes. But you called my response a red herring. And it wasn't.
When your response does not answer my post but goes in a different direction - your direction - it is a red herring.
 
Upvote 0

janxharris

Veteran
Jun 10, 2010
7,562
55
Essex, UK
Visit site
✟43,897.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
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; 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.

You seem to comfortable with preaching that is at best extremely misleading. You cannot tell a crowd that 'Christ died for our sins', and expect that those to whom you speak would still allow for the possibility that you are not necessarily including them. Without doubt they would consider that Christ died for them.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,553
709
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟140,373.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Atonement is by definition of terms redemption, a man's very salvation itself, his reconciliation to the Father through the death of Christ upon whose body all of his past, present, and future sins, the only reasons he could possibly be justly damned, irrevocably ceased to exist, rendering him as guiltless as the son of God. The Bible is explicit that only some humans are redeemed. Anything Christ did for all men isn't atonement and is thus somewhat secondary (dare I say tangential) to the Calvinist-Arminian disputes.
My understanding is that redemption is often used as a broad term for salvation. But there are several Greek words that are translated 'redemption'. To which are you referring?

Could it be that you are not differentiating between the provision of atonement for all and the application or appropriation of atonement to those who believe?

it is not as easy as you are wanting it to be. You haven't dealt with the various theories of the atonement: recapitulation, ransom, moral-example, moral-influence, necessary satisfaction, optional satisfaction, substitution, governmental, mystical, etc.

Oz
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,553
709
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟140,373.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
You seem to comfortable with preaching that is at best extremely misleading. You cannot tell a crowd that 'Christ died for our sins', and expect that those to whom you speak would still allow for the possibility that you are not necessarily including them. Without doubt they would consider that Christ died for them.
How can any person presenting the Gospel say with transparency, "Christ died for you", unless there is unlimited atonement available through Christ's death?

Oz
 
Upvote 0

janxharris

Veteran
Jun 10, 2010
7,562
55
Essex, UK
Visit site
✟43,897.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Of course the easiest way to address this objection is to note that even if Christ "died for" everyone, it's necessarily a different kind of "dying for" than the efficacious substitution of his own flesh for ours that saved us. That didn't happen for everyone, because universal efficacy is universalism. Thus, this form of "dying for" everyone is not the atonement, and could theoretically be granted without contradicting limited atonement. I'm not saying it should be granted that Paul is writing about some non-atoning thing Christ did for everyone in this passage, but if He were, atonement is still limited because he's not talking about it.

Atonement is by definition of terms redemption, a man's very salvation itself, his reconciliation to the Father through the death of Christ upon whose body all of his past, present, and future sins, the only reasons he could possibly be justly damned, irrevocably ceased to exist, rendering him as guiltless as the son of God. The Bible is explicit that only some humans are redeemed. Anything Christ did for all men isn't atonement and is thus somewhat secondary (dare I say tangential) to the Calvinist-Arminian disputes.

Why would you contemplate Christ dying in such a way when it achieves nothing?
Are you unable to declare to any man, unbelievers included, that Christ died for their sins? If Paul did not say 'our', then what did he say? What is the good news Epiphoskei?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,404
27,057
57
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,962,858.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Okay, but this chap insists you give him a 'yes', 'no' answer.
Is it true that some in this crowd that you preach to may be without access to the very gospel you speak of? True or false mister preacher?

False dilemma. To say that some are without access would be to say that some who wanted to be saved couldn't. That's not going to happen. Those who want to be saved, will be saved.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,404
27,057
57
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,962,858.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
When your response does not answer my post but goes in a different direction - your direction - it is a red herring.

Thanks for admitting that my post wasn't a red herring.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,404
27,057
57
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,962,858.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
You seem to comfortable with preaching that is at best extremely misleading. You cannot tell a crowd that 'Christ died for our sins', and expect that those to whom you speak would still allow for the possibility that you are not necessarily including them. Without doubt they would consider that Christ died for them.

You just completely dismissed his whole argument without even addressing it. Why?
 
Upvote 0

sdowney717

Newbie
Apr 20, 2013
8,712
2,022
✟117,598.00
Faith
Christian
False dilemma. To say that some are without access would be to say that some who wanted to be saved couldn't. That's not going to happen. Those who want to be saved, will be saved.

True because for “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

Those who are not elect to salvation will never call on Him to be saved.

5 Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace.[c] But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

7 What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded. 8 Just as it is written:

“God has given them a spirit of stupor,
Eyes that they should not see
And ears that they should not hear,
To this very day.”[d]

The point is salvation has come to the gentiles because of what God has done with Israel.
And He works the same in the gentiles as with Israel.
Because for “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Only the elect obtain salvation, there is no greek nor jew, they both have the same lord over them.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,404
27,057
57
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,962,858.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
How can any person presenting the Gospel say with transparency, "Christ died for you", unless there is unlimited atonement available through Christ's death?

Oz

His post didn't address the argument he was responding to. So this post really is irrelevant.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,404
27,057
57
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,962,858.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Why would you contemplate Christ dying in such a way when it achieves nothing?
Are you unable to declare to any man, unbelievers included, that Christ died for their sins? If Paul did not say 'our', then what did he say? What is the good news Epiphoskei?

It would be nice to see you address his actually argument in toto. But it seems that you have an agenda and won't be deterred.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.