What did Paul preach to the Corinthians?

[janxharris]

So if God knows a person won't believe, and then creates them anyway, they have access to eternal life once they're born? Either you're grossly confused, or being dishonest, or inconsistent, or you're an Open Theist. Not sure what it is.

Sure, they had access; of course they did.

None of those griff.

 

[Hammster]

Really? Fine. You preach a different gospel Hammster - for you corrected mine which, in essence, is Paul's.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7787859-69/#post64553419:

We (you Hammster and I) are walking together down the street. We see a vagrant sitting in a shop doorway and I say to him:

Hi there, you look cold. Can I buy you a sandwich? Yes? Okay, I will, but before I do, I just wanted to share with you, if you don't mind, the good news of Jesus Christ - is that okay with you? (Vagrant nods). Great - well the good news is that Jesus Christ died for our sins on the cross and on the third day after his burial, he rose again from the dead. This is, indeed, good news for all mankind because he defeated the curse of death...and that is something we can all relate to don't you think? All he asks is that we put our faith in him so that we might have eternal life. Anyway, I wont bother you further...except to give you this pamphlet which is a reminder of what I have just said - with some details of all the local churches. I will get that sandwich...
Do you correct me, or not?​

http://www.christianforums.com/t7787859-75/#post64559293:

Me:


You:
I'm correcting you now. But I wouldn't in front of him. It's not your words or mine that will regenerate him. The Spirit can use a poorly presented gospel.

What you presented wasn't what Paul preached. It's just your misunderstanding of the text, which we've gone through great length to correct you on.

 

[janxharris]

I'm not debating you about any specific text here. I'm simply trying to get you to acknowledge that kosmos can mean elect. I don't care what some guys thought. The Greek lexicon says kosmos can mean elect. I guess in order to support your traditions you feel the need to redefine the Greek language.

You do care what some guy thought - probably in this case Joseph Henry Thayer.

 

[janxharris]

What you presented wasn't what Paul preached. It's just your misunderstanding of the text, which we've gone through great length to correct you on.

If you are an expert on what Paul did in fact preach, then please let us know.
I am not aware of any tenable correction of what I have understood from the scriptures in question.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

So... the elect. So Jesus became sin for the elect, that they might become the righteousness of God in Him. Correct?

19that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them.

It was a yes or no question.

 

[janxharris]

It was a yes or no question.

Yes, God made him who had no sin to be sin for us (believers), so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Yes, that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Yes, God made him who had no sin to be sin for us (believers), so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Yes, that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them.

So then non-believers cannot claim verse 21 for themselves?

 

[janxharris]

So then non-believers cannot claim verse 21 for themselves?

I keep pointing you to v.19 which has God reconciling the world to himself, not counting people's sins against them. It is available to all.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

I keep pointing you to v.19 which has God reconciling the world to himself, not counting people's sins against them. It is available to all.

That has nothing to do with the point of who the atonement was intended for, as you must define the terms within the context (which you seem to think they define themselves). v21 explicitly says who Christ became sin for; ἡμῶν - our sake, ἐγώ is in the first person plural genitive (possessive). You have blatantly admitted that v21 was specifically speaking of believers. If you cannot say that v21 can be claimed by nonbelievers, then you have an inconsistency regarding the universal atonement being substitutionary.

 

[harrisrose77]

So then non-believers cannot claim verse 21 for themselves?

YES, non believers can refuse to claim this verse.

But, we the believers must show unbelievers the Way, the Truth, and the Life - Which is Jesus,.....then they can be shown this verse, and if they refuse, then leave that person or persons with your peace intacked, and move on....
But unfortunately some believers learn the hard way, and go on, and on, and try to do God's business for Him, when all they should do is offer up prayer and wait...Let God be God.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

YES, non believers can refuse to claim this verse.

...That's not what I was asking, sorry. I am asking, whether a non-believer actually believes it to be true or not, would they be right in saying "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God"... where "our" and "we" refer to non-believers as well?

 

[janxharris]

That has nothing to do with the point of who the atonement was intended for, as you must define the terms within the context (which you seem to think they define themselves).

The atonement was intended for the 'world', as it clearly says. It underlines it by saying that people's sins will not be counted against them.

v21 explicitly says who Christ became sin for; ἡμῶν - our sake, ἐγώ is in the first person plural genitive (possessive). You have blatantly admitted that v21 was specifically speaking of believers. If you cannot say that v21 can be claimed by nonbelievers, then you have an inconsistency regarding the universal atonement being substitutionary.

I have actually all pointed out that v. 19 isn't trumped by v. 21

I think you have an inconsistency with verse 15.

 

[guuila]

Sure, they had access; of course they did.

None of those griff.

Ok so like I said. They HAD access. Not have. Glad you agree. So there are folks in your system who don't have access to salvation.

 

[janxharris]

Ok so like I said. They HAD access. Not have. Glad you agree.

What?

 

[guuila]

You do care what some guy thought - probably in this case Joseph Henry Thayer.

What Greek lexicon do you use?

 

[guuila]

What?

You agree they HAD access. God foreknew they'd blow it, then created them anyway with no hope of salvation.

 

[janxharris]

You agree they HAD access. God foreknew they'd blow it, then created them anyway with no hope of salvation.

Sorry, but I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

I affirm that they had hope of salvation.

 

[harrisrose77]

...That's not what I was asking, sorry. I am asking, whether a non-believer actually believes it to be true or not, would they be right in saying "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God"... where "our" and "we" refer to non-believers as well?

A non-believer CAN refuse to believe this verse, along with the rest of the 'WORD', which is Jesus. 'The 'WORD' became flesh.....' and dwelt among us, believers and non-believers alike..... All of us, before True Faith belief, were damned to hell, including Calvin himself....

 

[Hammster]

If you are an expert on what Paul did in fact preach, then please let us know.
I am not aware of any tenable correction of what I have understood from the scriptures in question.

Then you haven't been paying attention, or just flat out ignore what we are saying. Much like you've refused to interact with my description of talking to my kids. It's been ignored at lest three times, one of which you actually had to delete it out of a quote.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

The atonement was intended for the 'world', as it clearly says.

First of all, in this text if "world" means "all people without qualification who have ever lived", then you would have to believe that God is actually reconciling all people without qualification, which would be universalism (which I know you don't hold to). God is reconciling people from the entire world through Christ, by the means of those who have the ministry of reconciliation. So then, also, if there is a means by which God is reconciling the world to Himself (the Gospel message as proclaimed by Christians), then wouldn't this necessarily mean not all people are reconciled? v20 proves this as Paul implores them (clearly any unbelievers reading) to be reconciled to God, which means those who actually are reconciled and will be reconciled are something less than the totality of all people who have ever lived without qualification. Therefore "world" must be defined by the context, i.e. those who are [and will be, i.e. the elect] reconciled to God.

It underlines it by saying that people's sins will not be counted against them.

Yes that's what happens when you are reconciled. If you think this has been given to all people, then please explain in v20 why Paul would implore someone to be reconciled, if it has already been given to them.

I have actually all pointed out that v. 19 isn't trumped by v. 21

I'm not trying to "trump" any verse. Why on earth would I want to do such a thing? We need to interpret the text as a whole. I am devoted to letting the text speak for itself, and I do not wish to chop it up into proof texts. So please don't make these types of statements.

I think you have an inconsistency with verse 15.

Really? Are you inferring that in v15, all died means that all people without qualification who have ever lived died in Christ?