What did Paul preach to the Corinthians?

[guuila]

How could they? They were before the incarnation. I didn't come down in the last shower.

So they had no access to salvation. Gotcha.

 

[guuila]

I asked you to put it simply. You obviously have a beef with what I wrote. If you don't put your issue simply to me, I'll not reply again.

The issue was put to you. You simply refuse to read it.

 

[guuila]

I guess this was overlooked.

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

What does that mean?

 

[Epiphoskei]

I think that you will have to be a little more specific. I may have conceded your point on first and second person plural pronouns, but regarding 1 Cor 15, there are a number of elements involved in addition to our understanding of clusivity.

To review how we got here:

A summary:

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 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.

To answer your question: Yes.

But mere hours later, here you are again alleging

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.

Despite the fact you just agreed that the Calvinist position is not a modification of the gospel by reason of merely changing pronouns to match an audience.

 

[OzSpen]

The issue was put to you. You simply refuse to read it.

Straw man again.

Bye

 

[guuila]

Straw man again.

Bye

I agree. Stop doing it.

 

[janxharris]

I wouldn't call what I said an analogy. Analogies liken foundationally different things which happen to have pedagogically useful similarities. "Chess is like war" is an analogy. A comparison of two foundationally similar things is not an analogy, for instance, "Winning a football game is like winning a baseball game" in that both are winning.

Christ saved us in the same way that one man saves another by throwing himself in the path of a bullet. Christ intercepted that which was coming to us. He literally, not metaphorically, received the death which was due to us. That is what Biblical salvation and biblical atonement are.

Then you have a problem with John 1 - especially v. 29. There is a lot of good news in this chapter...good news for 'mankind, 'all', 'everyone', 'world'....

One wonders how a Calvinist could preach such a good news scriptures to an unbeliever. Wouldn't you be continually tripping over yourself?

I don't know, maybe you wouldn't choose to look at them.

 

[janxharris]

To review how we got here:

But mere hours later, here you are again alleging

Despite the fact you just agreed that the Calvinist position is not a modification of the gospel by reason of merely changing pronouns to match an audience.

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?

To answer your question: Yes.

I also implied that such 'preaching' would elicit some strong questioning. Let me be clear, telling a crowd of unbelievers that:"Christ has saved for himself a particular people, buying them with his own blood," does not per se actually constitute good news. Perhaps I should have been clearer. I answered 'yes', but I wasn't accepting that this is what occurred with Paul and his preaching to the unbelieving Corinthians, or any others for that matter.

Now, would you please deal with the issue regarding 1 Cor 15?

 

[janxharris]

I guess this was overlooked.

What does that mean?

It means what it says. What, specifically, don't you understand?

You seem to be still insinuating that OT Gentiles were without the wherewithal to have faith in God. You seriously think that this is the case? Right, so your doctrine of total depravity justifies for you your seeming unconcern for the plight of such men. Well, unfortunately, that argument doesn't work because no one will be justified by the law.

The fact remains that John Calvin's false assertion that God 'compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man (unto damnation)' has trashed the character of God. Atheist's rightly consider John Calvin as grist for their mill.

 

[Hammster]

Not at all, for to be consistent with 1 Cor 15, you also say to them them, 'This is what we preach, and this is what you believed.'

Paul preached to unbelievers. The Corinthians believed the gospel.

You haven't proved he was talking about unbelievers.

 

[janxharris]

Removed.

 

[Hammster]

^^^^This is spam.

 

[janxharris]

.

 

[janxharris]

You haven't proved he was talking about unbelievers.

What exactly does this mean? Can you please clarify?

Which bit of, 'This is what we preach, and this is what you believed', don't you understand?

Do you agree that Paul preached? Do you agree that Paul does not distinguish a gospel for the believer and a gospel for the unbeliever? When Paul used the word 'this' in v. 11, he does not guard against us taking the exact antecedent that he has stated in vv. 3-4. That is a fact that you are unable to refute.

Paul shows zero concern for that which Calvinists guard against.

 

[janxharris]

^^^^This is spam.

Ok. I have removed it.

 

[guuila]

It means what it says. What, specifically, don't you understand?

You seem to be still insinuating that OT Gentiles were without the wherewithal to have faith in God. You seriously think that this is the case? Right, so your doctrine of total depravity justifies for you your seeming unconcern for the plight of such men. Well, unfortunately, that argument doesn't work because no one will be justified by the law.

The fact remains that John Calvin's false assertion that God 'compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man (unto damnation)' has trashed the character of God. Atheist's rightly consider John Calvin as grist for their mill.

Are you going to answer my question?

 

[janxharris]

How about repent and believe the gospel? Isn't that what the Apostles preached? Seems sufficient.

Yes, the apostles did preach that. Paul is quite specific regarding the gospel:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7787859-91/#post64577057

 

[janxharris]

Are you going to answer my question?

What don't you understand?

 

[guuila]

What don't you understand?

What does it mean that the requirements of the law are written on the heart of man? And how did that teach the Amorites who Jesus was?

 

[janxharris]

Are you going to answer my question?

J.C. wrote this on it:

Commentary on Romans - Christian Classics Ethereal Library