What Paul is Not Teaching in 1 Corinthians 15

Listen to my sermon at messiahreformed.com for a refutation of the biological resurrection using audio clips from Sproul and MacArthur to demonstrate how their position reduces Paul's argument to absurdity.

 

Enjoy. And feel free to distribute this sermon as much as you would like. It's time that people hear how ridiculous the biological resurrection is from the mouths of some of the most well-known biological resurrection advocates around.

 

Because of His grace,

Alan

Views: 108

Tags: 1, 15, Corinthians, Resurrection, Transition, full, preterism

Comment

You need to be a member of Sovereign Grace Preterism to add comments!

Join Sovereign Grace Preterism

Comment by Alan Bondar on March 3, 2011 at 8:31pm

I thought dispensationalism separated the church from Israel. I am arguing that the Gospel which the Corinthians were denying was that the hope of the resurrection belonged to Israel and that they could only be saved through that Gospel. If that's dispensationalism, then I guess I'm a dispensationalist.

 

However, I will say that if you examine verse 19, you'll notice that Paul is not saying that the Corinthians are most to be pitied, but that "we" the apostles who have been preaching this message are most to be pitied. Of course, I haven't finished my series, so I haven't gotten to verse 19 yet in my sermon. That's coming this week.

 

I'm still not sure I understand what Gospel you believe they were denying. It appears to me that you understand "the dead" to include the Corinthians. So essentially, Paul's argument to them is that if you don't believe you will be raised, then you can't believe Christ was raised.

 

So Christ was raised, therefore, you will be raised. How does Christ being raised prove that they would be raised?

 

You can call my interpretation dispensational all you want, but I'm not sure you understand what dispensationalism teaches. I've never heard or read a dispensationalist argue that the salvation of the Gentiles was through the resurrection of Israel. Tommy Ice and I must have more in common than I thought.

Comment by thomas greenlee on March 3, 2011 at 5:14pm

Alan,

 

No, we are not interpreting the same thing. You have inserted your presupposed dispensational doctrines on this text and in the process have distorted Paul's proof of the truth of his gospel and the false gospel that some of the Corinthians were believing. If you were to finish your examination with vs 19 you would see just exactly what gospel these Corinthians were believing. Paul states that if it is in this life only that we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. So, yes these Corinthians were denying the resurrection from the dead and their gospel was that their hope was in this life only. your sermon obfuscates this text with the strawman arguments you create so that you can get into your main topic of dispensationalism. I have heard and read many dispensational interpretations but I don't recall any so blatantly obvious as this.

 

This is not a frivolous, silly problem of illogical people that Paul is combatting. There has cropped up the problem of a false gospel in Corinth and some were believing it. This is a serious matter for Paul just as it was a serious matter for him in his other churches. No, we do not say the same things. You are arguing that your dispensational gospel is what Paul preached, not the scriptural truth of the gospel that Paul preached.

 

Tom

Comment by Alan Bondar on March 3, 2011 at 12:20pm

Tom,

I still don't see anything that you just mentioned to be in disagreement with what I've preached. I'm arguing that the Corinthians were believing in vain if they did not believe the Gospel that Paul gave to them. You're arguing that the Corinthians were believing in vain if they did not believe the Gospel that Paul gave to them.

 

I'm arguing that the Gospel which Paul gave to them came from Israel, and that they couldn't be saved apart from Israel. I'm arguing that they were embracing a salvation apart from the resurrection of the dead. What exactly are you saying is Paul's Gospel that they were denying?

Comment by thomas greenlee on March 3, 2011 at 11:54am

Thanks all for yor comments. Thanks Kerry for simplifying the argument Paul is making in this text.

 

Alan, I am pleased that you do understand what I have been saying, however, understanding what I have been saying and equating that to what you have been preaching is not accurate. I have not found in your sermons, the argument that Paul demonstrates in this text, the argument for the truth of the gospel that Paul preached and the error of another gospel that some of the Corinthians believed. What is at stake is the contradiction of some of the Corinthians. They say that they believe the gospel that Paul preached (vs 11) and at the same time they do not believe the gospel that Paul preached (vs 12). Paul sets it forth very clearly: "If you believe and hold fast the gospel I have preached unto you then your faith is not in vain and you are not still in your sins (vs 2)." But: "If you have gone astray believing some other gospel than the one I preached unto you (vs 12), then your faith is in vain and you are still in your sins (vs 17)."

 

Paul makes this same argument many times. Particularly to the Galatians where he adds being accursed to believing in vain and being still in their sins. This same Galatian letter also contradicts your sermon explanation of vs 3.

 

Tom

Comment by Kerry Clinite on March 3, 2011 at 10:09am
What can I say.  I simply want to be in agreement with the Apostle Paul.
Comment by Wanda Short on March 3, 2011 at 5:43am

@ Alan - LOL

@ Curtis - SGP Admins have not lost their sense of humor simply due to the desire to nurture an environment to encourage Christ-like behavior.  No egg shells here... :-}  w

Comment by Curtis Sibbit on March 3, 2011 at 2:17am

Trying to walk carefully on the egg shells due to the professed new attitude here at SGP but I have to say something.  Alan, that last comment was the funniest thing I've read all week.  No offense meant to anyone.  It is a fair logical conclusion as well.

Curtis

Comment by Alan Bondar on March 2, 2011 at 6:26pm

Kerry,

Thank you for providing you're understanding of what Tom was saying. That's exactly what I understood Tom to be saying. So if that is what Tom is indeed saying, then we agree 100%. Since what you and I understand Tom to be saying are identical, thus bringing Tom and I to 100% agreement, then that is most definitely not what Tom was saying.

Comment by Kerry Clinite on March 2, 2011 at 4:43pm

Let me give it a try.  I don't speak for Tom, and he may not agree with what I am going to say, or how I am going to phrase it.  

Paul gives the Corinthians only two choices.

1. You have Believed the Gospel I preach, then your faith is not in vain, there is a resurrection of the dead.

2. There is no resurrection of the dead, your faith is in vain, you did not believe the Gospel I preached to you, then you are still in you sins.

I hope this helps.

Comment by Alan Bondar on March 2, 2011 at 3:16pm
That may help me as well.

© 2014   Created by Michael Bennett.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service