Featured Best One-Volume Systematic Theology?

"I save" is active. "I am saved" or "I got saved" is passive, at least in the US. I'm not sure how it could be otherwise. For "get saved" to be active on either side of the ocean, it would have to take a direct object ("I save myself," or "I save George"), and it doesn't.

 

I am saved, I was saved, I have been saved, or, best of all, Christ saved me all work for me. However, I'm happy to accept that you understand "get saved" to be passive, and that's fine.

 

I asked you what the Gospel was. You said something about the death of Christ for sins, then directed me to Acts. You missed the Resurrection, which indeed, is preached all through Acts. (You really didn't think I had studied Acts thoroughly, having been a missionary for 33 years???)

Suit yourself. I have nothing against you--just think you need a lesson in interacting on the Baptist Board. Don't ever go assuming someone is not being spiritual simply because they don't say things like you think they should.

Same to you.

 

None of you beloved Calvinists have yet figured out the point I've been making about 1 Cor. 15. Your replies have all missed the mark. But that's okay. This is not on the Cal/Arm forum, which I avoid like the plague (), and I have no brief to turn Calvinists into whatever I am.

For the record, I have not been advocating preaching the epistles to lost sinners.

 

My point was that in 1 Cor. 15, Paul was teaching what the substance of the Gospel was. So, as the Corinthians reached out with the Gospel, I believe what Paul taught them was what they were to do outreach out with.

I may have made it clumsily, but this is a quite different argument from "Preach 1 Cor. to the lost." I admit that in trying to answer the arguments I may have left the impression that "Let the lost read Corinthians" was my primary point. It was not.

 

Thanks for considering my point, Doc. And I'm sure if I tried to argue limited atonement with you, you'd walk all over me. But I will say, do you really think that "1 Corinthians is correctional rather than instructional in its intent"? In other words, you've been a prof, right? How is correction not a form of instruction? Is it really "either/or"?

 

Get the final revision of his, as that clears things up!

 

I could agree with that Jesus died for our sins, but would not tell them died for your sins, as only God knows that!

 

Pretty sure that's what I tried to read, unless the "final revision" is a real recent thing.

 

I see both Calvinists and non cals trying to get the message of the Cross of Christ out to the lost, so lets not get bogged down into trying to decide if we are doing it the right way, as the Lord Jesus Himself told us to just get that message out to all sinners!

 

I am a strong Calvinist, but still do not see the need to be drawn into a contest of if we are teaching the same and right Gospel, as again, both you and I would agree upon what is to be taught and to whom regardless!

 

So correction is not a subset of instruction?

 

So Calvin only wrote in full his 1541 edition, and the 1559 was basically revised by others?

 

Please take this as an honest question: To hang your idea on the "our" of verse three is curious to me as Paul sets the context of the passage in v. 1 by addressing the Corinthians as "Brothers." Wouldn't we, by implication, have to say if the "our" is universal, than the "brothers" has to be as well? Wouldn't that point more to an idea of universalism?

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

No, I see no universalism in my approach. I see the Gospel presented in 1 Cor. 15 as a unit--a definition, if you will. So then if a Corinthian believer were to witness to someone about the Gospel, surely he would remember how Paul explained it, and explain it the same way, i.e., "Christ died for our sins."

It's as if I said to everyone, "Brothers, in order to get into the room with the fried chicken, the password is "It is everyone's chicken." In that case, "Brothers" and "everyone" are not the same group.