What did Paul preach to the Corinthians?

[Epiphoskei]

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.

That's incorrect. This is the standard understanding of the first person plural pronoun. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clusivity 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.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Could it be that you are not differentiating between the provision of atonement for all and the application or appropriation of atonement to those who believe?

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.

 

[janxharris]

It's accessible to all who want it.

Such a response attempts to hold those who do not want it (the gospel) responsible. I thought it was already settled that those that God determined to eternally damn (your theology, not mine) were without access?

'It's accessible to all who want it' actually translated means something quite different:
'It's accessible to all those God elected, for they will be transformed to want it'

Why do you keep trying to somehow make it that salvation is accessible to all men Hammster? It betrays the fact that you are uncomfortable with your own theology, I would say.

 

[Hammster]

Such a response attempts to hold those who do not want it (the gospel) responsible. I thought it was already settled that those that God determined to eternally damn (your theology, not mine) were without access?

'It's accessible to all who want it' actually translated means something quite different:
'It's accessible to all those God elected, for they will be transformed to want it'

Why do you keep trying to somehow make it that salvation is accessible to all men Hammster? It betrays the fact that you are uncomfortable with your own theology, I would say.

Anyone who wants to be saved will be saved. That's anyone. I'm not saying that all will want to. So at this point, I'd say we agree.

 

[janxharris]

It's accessible to all who want it.

Nobody wants it...God regenerates a certain elect group of men and they want it...it is these men only that want it.

Since nobody wanted it and the reprobates are left in that state of not wanting...well, they don't want it.

It's accessible to all who want it = It's accessible to ONLY those God transforms.

Your attempt to hold the reprobates culpable fails. The gospel is inaccessible to reprobates.

 

[Hammster]

Nobody wants it...God regenerates a certain elect group of men and they want it...it is these men only that want it.

Since nobody wanted it and the reprobates are left in that state of not wanting...well, they don't want it.

It's accessible to all who want it = It's accessible to ONLY those God transforms.

Your attempt to hold the reprobates culpable fails. The gospel is inaccessible to reprobates.

The reprobate gets what they want.

 

[nobdysfool]

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.

And those that act on that perception show that He did, indeed, die for them. Those who do not act, show that either they don't believe He did, or they don't want His provision. And only they can answer which it is, either of which is a damning response. If they don't believe He died for them, that's not God's fault. They have enough evidence to show that they should believe (Romans 1). The fact that they don't only underscores the conclusion of Paul's words in Romans 1. Therefore, apart from God's intervention in them, they will not believe.

Thus, those who respond in belief are those whom God has chosen unto that belief. And He has that right, to chose one and pass over another. It has nothing to do with "fairness" or "opportunity", it has to do with a Sovereign God who chooses as He wills based on His own Wise Counsel, and His own Intention to further and magnify His Glory.

 

[OzSpen]

False dilemma. To say that some are without access would be to say that some who wanted to be saved couldn't. That's not going to happen. Those who want to be saved, will be saved.

My understanding is that in your system, those who are not unconditionally elected, for whom Christ did not die, and for whom there is no effectual call (irresistible grace) do not have access to salvation. They will not be able to respond to the Gospel. They will be prevented from responding to the Gospel. Is that true?

 

[OzSpen]

The reprobate gets what they want.

But doesn't your system believe that the reprobates get what God wants regarding eternal salvation?

 

[janxharris]

And those that act on that perception show that He did, indeed, die for them. Those who do not act, show that either they don't believe He did, or they don't want His provision. And only they can answer which it is, either of which is a damning response. If they don't believe He died for them, that's not God's fault. They have enough evidence to show that they should believe (Romans 1). The fact that they don't only underscores the conclusion of Paul's words in Romans 1. Therefore, apart from God's intervention in them, they will not believe.

Thus, those who respond in belief are those whom God has chosen unto that belief. And He has that right, to chose one and pass over another. It has nothing to do with "fairness" or "opportunity", it has to do with a Sovereign God who chooses as He wills based on His own Wise Counsel, and His own Intention to further and magnify His Glory.

That is bad news and is not the gospel. I'm pretty sure you would not repeat much of what you have written whilst obeying the great commission ('...to preach the gospel to all creation...').

Here is the good news...here is the gospel that can be preach to any man without exception:
Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures and He was buried and rose again on the third day, according to the scriptures. Believe in Him and you will be saved.

 

[OzSpen]

That is bad news and is not the gospel. I'm pretty sure you would not repeat much of what you have written whilst obeying the great commission ('...to preach the gospel to all creation...').

Here is the good news...here is the gospel that can be preach to any man without exception:
Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures and He was buried and rose again on the third day, according to the scriptures. Believe in Him and you will be saved.

 

[janxharris]

That's incorrect. 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.

Certainly, a first-person plural pronoun does provide for exclusiveness as you demonstrate - but, as you also say, it is the context that determines this. In the case of Paul preaching the gospel to a crowd of unbelievers and saying 'Christ died for our sins', exclusive 'our' is not permissible unless Paul explicitly qualified his words.

He didn't.

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'm sure you are making a valid point, but you have lost me.

 

[janxharris]

We should also note that Paul allows for the possibility that non-believers are amongst those to whom he is writing. Not that Paul thinks there are unbelievers, but that there might be. Despite this, he still asserts that 'Christ died for our sins'. If Paul had wanted make 'our' exclusive - that is, he wanted to exclude some men from the certainty of Christ dying for their sins, he could have done so. He did not do so.

If it is the case that Christ did not die for the sins of all men without exception, then Paul failed to clarify this. Since we know that all scripture is God-breathed, then we cannot but conclude that limited atonement is false.

1 Corinthians 15:1-5
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. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,​

 

[Hammster]

My understanding is that in your system, those who are not unconditionally elected, for whom Christ did not die, and for whom there is no effectual call (irresistible grace) do not have access to salvation. They will not be able to respond to the Gospel. They will be prevented from responding to the Gospel. Is that true?

No. They won't even want to respond. Calvinism holds to original sin.

And where are you guys coming up this idea of access to salvation? What exactly do you mean?

 

[Hammster]

But doesn't your system believe that the reprobates get what God wants regarding eternal salvation?

You mean justice? Yes.

 

[Epiphoskei]

In the case of Paul preaching the gospel to a crowd of unbelievers and saying 'Christ died for our sins', exclusive 'our' is not permissible unless Paul explicitly qualified his words.

He didn't.

Justify this claim.

I'm sure you are making a valid point, but you have lost me.

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.

 

[nobdysfool]

It amazes me how the non-Calvinists think that Calvinists preach Calvinist Theology as an Evangelical tool. Do Arminians preach Arminian theology as an evangelical tool? I don't think so. Such claims are the classic "red herring" that some seem to want to constantly accuse their opposition of, as a way to derail discussion. Calvinist theology is an understanding of what is going on behind the scenes, not an evangelical method.

Calvinists preach Christ crucified, and risen, and those whom God has chosen respond to the message. It's just that simple.

 

[janxharris]

It amazes me how the non-Calvinists think that Calvinists preach Calvinist Theology as an Evangelical tool. Do Arminians preach Arminian theology as an evangelical tool? I don't think so. Such claims are the classic "red herring" that some seem to want to constantly accuse their opposition of, as a way to derail discussion. Calvinist theology is an understanding of what is going on behind the scenes, not an evangelical method.

Calvinists preach Christ crucified, and risen, and those whom God has chosen respond to the message. It's just that simple.

...and those whom God has chosen to respond to the message...

So you do include it when you tell non-believers about Christ.

 

[Epiphoskei]

...and those whom God has chosen to respond to the message...

So you do include it when you tell non-believers about Christ.

I'd reread that.

 

[janxharris]

No. They won't even want to respond. Calvinism holds to original sin.

And where are you guys coming up this idea of access to salvation? What exactly do you mean?

1. Christ did not die for all men. Yes/no?
2. Those he did not die for, like all men, will not fulfill the law. Yes/no?
3. The only option for reprobates is faith in a Christ. Yes/no?
4. Whether faith in Christ for reprobates is possible or not is an academic exercise - Christ did not die for them. Yes/no?
5. The reprobates are without access to salvation. Yes/no?