What did Paul preach to the Corinthians?

[Epiphoskei]

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.

I don't know where to start...

How about here. Exactly how can you prevent Jesus from being crucified for you?

 

[Epiphoskei]

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.

You've just admitted to me the last time you said this that changing antecedents to match the audience does not constitute modifying the gospel.

 

[guuila]

Originally Posted by janxharris http://www.christianforums.com/t7787859-92/#post64577103
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

So what's Paul saying exactly? Give me layman's terms.

 

[Hammster]

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.

Thanks. Point made.

 

[Hammster]

Which means what?

If you don't know...

 

[Hammster]

Why don't you tell us?

They didn't. But aren't the ones making the argument that they did.

 

[guuila]

Well, that was quick.

 

[Johnnz]

So what's Paul saying exactly? Give me layman's terms.

Jews had Torah. Gentiles who didn't still knew right and wrong from their conscience. Thus, all people have some measure of knowing right and wrong and will be judged accordingly.

That seems pretty obvious from the scripture I quoted.

John
NZ

 

[OzSpen]

When you put it simply, I might be able to provide and answer. But not with this convoluted way of your doing it.

Please tell me what your specific question is.

Thanks,
Oz

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



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?"

 

[Jack Terrence]

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?

You are making no sense.

 

[OzSpen]

If you don't know...

Why are you being nebulous like this?

 

[Jack Terrence]

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

WHOM He did foreknow, THEM He also predestinated to be conformed the the image of His own Son. And WHOM he predestinated, THEM He also called. And WHOM He called, THEM He also justified. Romans 8:30

It sure sounds like individual predestination to me.

 

[OzSpen]

WHOM he predestinated, THEM He also called. And WHOM He called, THEM He also justified. Romans 8:30

It sure sounds like individual predestination to me.

Might sound individual predestination to you, but it sounds as though it could be group predestination to me. 'Them' is plural.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Might sound individual predestination to you, but it sounds as though it could be group predestination to me. 'Them' is plural.

Nonsense! Groups are made of INDIVIDUALS. Are you suggesting that as a group we will be conformed to Christ's image and not as individuals?

You're losing the argument.

 

[Johnnz]

Might sound individual predestination to you, but it sounds as though it could be group predestination to me. 'Them' is plural.

Paul picks up these terms on the following three chapters (Romans 9-11). There God's relationship with Israel (ie Collectively) becomes more apparent.

John
NZ

 

[OzSpen]

They didn't. But aren't the ones making the argument that they did.

So will the Amorites stand before God on judgment Day and have an excuse (Rom 1:20)?

 

[OzSpen]

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.

Jan,

That's a good one that clearly states that Philip preached/proclaimed the Gospel (good news) to unbelievers.

Thanks for doing the work to show us that the early preachers of the Gospel did preach to unbelievers. Or is someone going to say that Simon, a sorcerer, was a believer?

Oz

 

[Jack Terrence]

Paul picks up these terms on the following three chapters (Romans 9-11). There God's relationship with Israel (ie Collectively) becomes more apparent.

John
NZ

See post #934. If we are not predestinated as individuals, then we are not conformed to Christ's image as individuals.

It doesn't take a degree in rocket science.

 

[guuila]

Jews had Torah. Gentiles who didn't still knew right and wrong from their conscience. Thus, all people have some measure of knowing right and wrong and will be judged accordingly.

That seems pretty obvious from the scripture I quoted.

John
NZ

So some folks will be justified by how good they are?

 

[OzSpen]

Paul picks up these terms on the following three chapters (Romans 9-11). There God's relationship with Israel (ie Collectively) becomes more apparent.

John
NZ

So do you believe the biblical teaching is group predestination? Or is yours another view? Why don't you share your understanding of predestination since you've stated that your view is not in support of individual predestination?

Oz