What did Paul preach to the Corinthians?

[janxharris]

You do realize that if I preach to unbelievers "Christ has saved for himself a particular people, buying them with his own blood," and then preach to believers "Christ has purchased us with his blood," I'm saying exactly the same thing, yes?

Changing antecedents when changing audiences is not a big deal.

I think you might find yourself asked a lot of difficult questions if you said that to unbelievers. Under close scrutiny, Calvinism does not have any good news.

To answer your question: Yes.

It is the case that you Epiphoskei, might be forced to admit the truth of your theology - that God decided to damn some men - probably even some of those in the crowd you are addressing.

That is not the gospel.

 

[janxharris]

That's incorrect.

Your response to:

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 continued:

This is the standard understanding of the first person plural pronoun. See Clusivity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for a primer. If audiences would necessarily understand the statement differently, you necessarily understand my example sentences in an incorrect sense as well, and I doubt this.

Also, you cannot "tell a crowd that 'Christ died for our sins'" whatsoever. You can "tell a crowd that Christ died for our sins" or "tell a crowd, 'Christ died for our sins,'" but what you're writing indicates both direct and indirect quotation simultaneously. Please pick one and avoid the other - we need to be in agreement over what parts of the text are and are not direct quotes in order to understand what the antecedent of the pronouns in those quotes are.

I made a simple statement, which I shall repeat and clarify.

If one says to a crowd of people (that includes unbelievers), 'Christ died for our sins', then it follows that, without exception, everyone in the crowd will take it that Christ died for them.

Are you seriously suggesting that some in the crowd, mindful of the fact that first-person plural pronouns can be exclusive, might infer that they might not be among those that Christ died for?

 

[janxharris]

A man points a gun at me and shoots. Another man jumps in front of the bullet, dying, but causing the bullet to not be able to strike me. Do I need to differentiate between the provision of bullet-interception and the application of bullet-interception? Can I even do so and still talk sense?

I am struck by the absolute absence of any Arminian-style provision/application speech at the climax of any work of literature wherein one figure sacrifices himself for another. The sacrifice in A Tale of Two Cities doesn't leave Darnay free to not be guillotined if he so desires - it just saves him. The sacrifice of Gandalf does not allow the fellowship the mere option of not being killed by a balrog. Our inability to speak in this way of substitutionary redemptions has long since convinced me that "Christ died for my sins" and "Christ died so that my sins can be able to be forgiven as a secondary matter from his actual atonement" are really mutually exclusive statements.

This is a straw man. For the analogy to be correct then it would have to be possible for you (the one being fired at) to prevent the man that jumps in front of the bullet from doing so.

 

[janxharris]

That Jesus would suffer horrendously for sin, just to have some people still be punished by His Father for the same sins He paid for is an astonishing view of God for a Christian to take.

Why?

 

[janxharris]

So, what you are saying is that people who are in hell are there because they committed the unforgivable sin?

Tell me, does God's love equate to compacting with himself what he willed to become of each man? Does God's love equate to not creating all men in equal condition - such that some are foreordained to eternal damnation?

Isn't hatred a more appropriate term?

No doubt you will don't play the 'justly condemned for their wickedness' card. They have no access to salvation, remember? Jesus didn't die for them. They can't have faith in Him - right? They cannot do that which Paul tells us is the ONLY option to attain righteousness.

Galatians 3:11
Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.”

Why are you unwilling to address the full import of your theology?

 

[janxharris]

Where does it say that Paul and Silas knew that all men had the wherewithal? Why would Paul say that the God of this age has blinded their minds (2 Cor. 4:4)?

Paul preached to crowds of people, so we know that Paul assumed that nobody was predetermined not to believe. That is a truism.

It seems that Paul did not take his own words (2 Cor 4:4) in an absolute sense, for Paul preached to unbelievers. It is the same in Matthew 13, where Judas is given to know, but others are not given to know. It is not an absolute black and white pronouncement.

No so! Being prophets of God they may have known that God had prepared the jailer's heart to receive their message and believe. God revealed to Paul that the Gentiles would listen (Acts 28:28).

Your theology is based on invalid inference. You keep repeating the same things over and over again forcing us to repeat ourselves.

Paul preach to crowds of people - you are not telling me that if just one person in the crowd was one whom Paul discerned would not believe then Paul would not, therefore, have preached? If Paul had had television, he would have used it to preach the gospel...and there is no telling who might be listening.

I will keep pushing these points, yes. If Calvinists will stop suggesting that God compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man (unto damnation), then I will stop. Ascribing to God such actions is a slight on God's character.

 

[janxharris]

A direct quotation uses the form "A said 'X.'" An indirect quotation uses the form "A said that X." You're writing "A said that 'X,'" which is not a legitimate way of rendering quotation. If Paul said to the Corinthians that Paul said "Christ died for our sins," an inclusive "our" would indeed be understood as you would have us understand this passage. If, rather, Paul said that Paul said that Christ died for our sins, the inclusive "our" is only inclusive of Paul and the Corinthian church. An "our" which is inclusive of the audience is only inclusive of the actual audience of the statement it presently occurs in, which in this case is the Corinthian church. It isn't inclusive of other audiences of earlier statements which are being indirectly quoted within the present statement.

Hence, when I say to my wife "I told your sister that our children are at school," even though "our" is contextually inclusive, it is only inclusive of my wife. She is the only second person in the statement which I am presently making, and her sister is the third person, and thus not included in my inclusive "our," even though her sister was the second person of the previous statement which I am indirectly quoting.

Again, this does not address the issue regarding 1 Cor 15. The antecedent of the 'this' of v. 11 is vv. 3 & 4. Paul does not correct any misunderstanding; he does not say that he actually means that we are to preach, 'Christ died for our (believers only) sins'.

 

[harrisrose77]

What is the difference between you and a person God knows won't believe? What was it that made you believe the gospel while they think it's stupid?

From the time I was 7 years old I believed in God without knowing the whole truth of Jesus. My Mother was a believer, and I went to Sunday school. So I would say, that God had His sight on me from the beginning. The thing is, I was into the occult practices for quite a number of years, starting with spiritism which led to tarot reading etc. But I became very ill, and was suddenly surrounded by 4 believers of Christ. There was a time when I rejected the Bible, and wouldn't even read it, among my many, many books. But forces of darkness already had a grip on me, so the god of this world, ( Satan had me blinded), until I decided for myself that I was going to believe in Jesus. It was the explanation of the work's of the Cross that made me finally accept my True Father, and the Atoning blood of Christ. The only thing I'll say, for sure, is that God was drawing me to His Son, and finally I succumbed.

 

[janxharris]

Paul may have allowed for that possibility, but that doesn't mean he addressed the letter to these people. "Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes, To the church of God in Corinth" are how the book begins.

In any event, you still need to justify why it would be misleading for Paul to write in the manner I suggest he did. Indo-European languages don't mark clusivity one way or another, so there isn't a default inclusivity inherent in the use of the word which can be assumed until explicitly contradicted by the text. Clusivity is signified in context, which we don't have for the original message being recalled in this passage. We can't even be sure Paul used the words "Christ died for our sins" at any point in that message. We only know that the word "our" occurred in his letter to the Corinthians, and contextually the only parties mentioned in the book who could be antecedent to "our" are Paul and the church of God in Corinth.

Sorry, but the clincher remains v. 11. Calvinism demands that the words, 'Christ died for our sins', are not spoken to unbelievers such that they (the crowd) are under the impression that that includes them. Paul shows no such concern. No distinction and no clarification.

 

[harrisrose77]

Sorry, but the clincher remains v. 11. Calvinism demands that the words, 'Christ died for our sins', are not spoken to unbelievers such that they (the crowd) are under the impression that that includes them. Paul shows no such concern. No distinction and no clarification.

1Peter 5:8 and James 4:7
Only the Word of God can tear down such stronghold theories, made by Calanism.

 

[Hammster]

I said it is possible.

Here we go again. You want to criticize us for our view on limited atonement, and how unspeakable it is that a Christian would believe such a thing. Then you float a trial balloon about the unforgivable sin, and that's why there are people in hell, which if true means that you hold to limited atonement.

But you're not sure.

How about being sure of what you being sure of what you before you criticize us about what we believe?

 

[Hammster]

Why?

Because it's not just. And God is just.

 

[Hammster]

Tell me, does God's love equate to compacting with himself what he willed to become of each man? Does God's love equate to not creating all men in equal condition - such that some are foreordained to eternal damnation?

Isn't hatred a more appropriate term?

No doubt you will don't play the 'justly condemned for their wickedness' card. They have no access to salvation, remember? Jesus didn't die for them. They can't have faith in Him - right? They cannot do that which Paul tells us is the ONLY option to attain righteousness.

Galatians 3:11
Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.”

Why are you unwilling to address the full import of your theology?

Non sequitur. I asked you a question. This isn't an answer to that question.

 

[Hammster]

From the time I was 7 years old I believed in God without knowing the whole truth of Jesus. My Mother was a believer, and I went to Sunday school. So I would say, that God had His sight on me from the beginning. The thing is, I was into the occult practices for quite a number of years, starting with spiritism which led to tarot reading etc. But I became very ill, and was suddenly surrounded by 4 believers of Christ. There was a time when I rejected the Bible, and wouldn't even read it, among my many, many books. But forces of darkness already had a grip on me, so the god of this world, ( Satan had me blinded), until I decided for myself that I was going to believe in Jesus. It was the explanation of the work's of the Cross that made me finally accept my True Father, and the Atoning blood of Christ. The only thing I'll say, for sure, is that God was drawing me to His Son, and finally I succumbed.

So you are smarter? More humble? More spiritual than those who don't believe? Which is it? Or is it something else?

 

[Hammster]

Sorry, but the clincher remains v. 11. Calvinism demands that the words, 'Christ died for our sins', are not spoken to unbelievers such that they (the crowd) are under the impression that that includes them. Paul shows no such concern. No distinction and no clarification.

If I told my kids, who are believers, that that they need to remember that Christ died for our sins, why would they think that I have changed my theology to universal atonement just because I said "our"?

 

[guuila]

I think you might find yourself asked a lot of difficult questions if you said that to unbelievers. Under close scrutiny, Calvinism does not have any good news.

To answer your question: Yes.

It is the case that you Epiphoskei, might be forced to admit the truth of your theology - that God decided to damn some men - probably even some of those in the crowd you are addressing.

That is not the gospel.

I told a God hater once that Christ may not have died for him. He laughed. Not at all bothered like you are. He hates Jesus and thinks the entire concept is hilarious. He thought he'd make God sad by refusing to believe, thus in his mind he was winning. That's when I informed him that salvation is of the Lord, and that if God intends that he be a believer, he will be. He's not going to make God dependent on him like he thought. But for some reason you find that disgusting. Strange.

 

[guuila]

From the time I was 7 years old I believed in God without knowing the whole truth of Jesus. My Mother was a believer, and I went to Sunday school. So I would say, that God had His sight on me from the beginning. The thing is, I was into the occult practices for quite a number of years, starting with spiritism which led to tarot reading etc. But I became very ill, and was suddenly surrounded by 4 believers of Christ. There was a time when I rejected the Bible, and wouldn't even read it, among my many, many books. But forces of darkness already had a grip on me, so the god of this world, ( Satan had me blinded), until I decided for myself that I was going to believe in Jesus. It was the explanation of the work's of the Cross that made me finally accept my True Father, and the Atoning blood of Christ. The only thing I'll say, for sure, is that God was drawing me to His Son, and finally I succumbed.

So God didn't draw the unbeliever who dies in his sins the same way he drew you? Or did God treat you equally?

 

[Jack Terrence]

If I told my kids, who are believers, that that they need to remember that Christ died for our sins, why would they think that I have changed my theology to universal atonement just because I said "our"?

Calvinists are Covenantalists and operate under the presumption that the children of the Elect are themselves Elect. This is why we tell our children that Christ died for our sins.

 

[Hammster]

Calvinists are Covenantalists and operate under the presumption that the children of the Elect are themselves Elect. This is why we tell our children that Christ died for our sins.

My argument is more grammatical.

 

[guuila]

Calvinists are Covenantalists and operate under the presumption that the children of the Elect are themselves Elect. This is why we tell our children that Christ died for our sins.

I do not operate under that presumption.