What did Paul preach to the Corinthians?

[Hammster]

I do not operate under that presumption.

It's more of a Presby thing.

 

[guuila]

It's more of a Presby thing.

I'm more of a Spurgeonist than a Calvinist.

 

[Johnnz]

I'm more of a Spurgeonist than a Calvinist.

My preference is to be a good biblicist, rightly understanding what the Scriptures actually say. And since they don't teach individual predestination I find this kind of debate rather fruitless.

John
NZ

 

[OzSpen]

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.

Are you saying that they can live all of their lives rejecting God and Jesus' death, engaging in all kinds of reprobate behaviour, but they are still in God's covenant and are in the elect of God, saved unto eternal salvation?

Is that what you are promoting here?

Oz

 

[janxharris]

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"?

Paul preached this to unbelievers.

 

[janxharris]

1 Corinthians 15:11
Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

To maintain consistency, Calvinists must assume that that which Paul and the other apostles preached was:
A) only intended for believers;
B) only intended for the elect;
C) a modification of the gospel outlined in vv. 3b-4.

A) cannot be true because Paul never guarded against it - on the contrary, it was his ambition:

Romans 15:20-21
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. Rather, as it is written: “Those who were not told about him will see, and those who have not heard will understand.”

In Acts there are many examples of the apostles preaching to unbelievers. Here is just one:

Acts 8:9-13
Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great, and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention and exclaimed, “This man is rightly called the Great Power of God.” They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his sorcery. But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw.

Paul allows for the possibility that the gospel he specifies in vv. 3b-4 might be heard by unbelievers in the Corinthian church:

1 Corinthians 15:1-2
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.

Paul also says in v.11, that 'this is what you believed.'

B) cannot be true because we do not know who the elect are.

Finally, C) cannot be true because Paul never even hints at such a modification.

Whilst Calvinism demands that the gospel outlined by Paul in vv. 3b-4 is not to be preached to unbelievers, Paul himself had no such concerns.

 

[janxharris]

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

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 do you assume it's the same sins?

 

[Hammster]

My preference is to be a good biblicist, rightly understanding what the Scriptures actually say. And since they don't teach individual predestination I find this kind of debate rather fruitless.

John
NZ

And yet...

 

[guuila]

And since they don't teach individual predestination I find this kind of debate rather fruitless.

John
NZ

You're always free to remove yourself from the discussion.

 

[Hammster]

Paul preached this to unbelievers.

And you've still avoided my argument. Fourth time?

 

[guuila]

I wonder how the Amorites knew about Jesus.

 

[Hammster]

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 do you assume it's the same sins?

I'll admit that this question has thrown me for a loop. If you think that people are in hell for sins that Christ didn't die for, then how is that different than limited atonement?

 

[Hammster]

I wonder how the Amorites knew about Jesus.

Excellent question.

 

[janxharris]

I wonder how the Amorites knew about Jesus.

Everyone has the requirements of the law written on their heart.

 

[guuila]

Everyone has the requirements of the law written on their heart.

What does that mean?

 

[janxharris]

And you've still avoided my argument. Fourth time?

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"?

They wouldn't.

1 Corinthians 15:11
Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

To maintain consistency, Calvinists must assume that that which Paul and the other apostles preached was:
A) only intended for believers;
B) only intended for the elect;
C) a modification of the gospel outlined in vv. 3b-4.

A) cannot be true because Paul never guarded against it - on the contrary, it was his ambition:

Romans 15:20-21
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. Rather, as it is written: “Those who were not told about him will see, and those who have not heard will understand.”

In Acts there are many examples of the apostles preaching to unbelievers. Here is just one:

Acts 8:9-13
Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great, and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention and exclaimed, “This man is rightly called the Great Power of God.” They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his sorcery. But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw.

Paul allows for the possibility that the gospel he specifies in vv. 3b-4 might be heard by unbelievers in the Corinthian church:

1 Corinthians 15:1-2
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.

Paul also says in v.11, that 'this is what you believed.'

B) cannot be true because we do not know who the elect are.

Finally, C) cannot be true because Paul never even hints at such a modification.

Whilst Calvinism demands that the gospel outlined by Paul in vv. 3b-4 is not to be preached to unbelievers, Paul himself had no such concerns.

 

[OzSpen]

And yet...

Which means what?

 

[OzSpen]

I wonder how the Amorites knew about Jesus.

Why don't you tell us?

 

[guuila]

Why don't you tell us?

Welcome back. I'm still waiting for you to answer the question I asked a few days ago:

That was not a statement by me BUT A QUESTION by me. This is what I ASKED: God is delaying Christ's return hoping the non-elect will believe?

Pleased note the question mark.

Oz

False. You are not making any sense. Let me go ahead and refresh your memory.

Johnnz said here http://www.christianforums.com/t7787859-45/#post64540347:

"Of course not. But then that letter was written to a local Christian community informing them of a pertinent aspect of God's attributes. It was never a theological pronouncement within some Calvin framed doctrine."

I responsed with here http://www.christianforums.com/t7787859-45/#post64540938:

"So it's your theory that Peter was telling the saints that God is delaying Christ's return hoping the non-elect will believe?"

Then you said here http://www.christianforums.com/t7787859-46/#post64541294:

"Johnz said nothing of the sort. That's your imposing your Calvinistic worldview on what John wrote. So your response is a red herring."

Then I said here http://www.christianforums.com/t7787859-46/#post64541302:

"What is Calvinistic about what I said?"

Then, 20 pages later, you said:

"That was not a statement by me BUT A QUESTION by me. This is what I ASKED: God is delaying Christ's return hoping the non-elect will believe? "

You never asked that. That was my question to Johnnz. It seems you're having problems keeping up with the discussion. So again, I'll ask you:

What is Calvinistic about my question to Johnnz, which was "So it's your theory that Peter was telling the saints that God is delaying Christ's return hoping the non-elect will believe?"

 

[Johnnz]

Originally Posted by janxharris

Everyone has the requirements of the law written on their heart.
​

What does that mean?

What Paul stated:
Rom 2:12-16 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. NIV

John
NZ