1Cor2:14 is not "Calvinistic"

[nobdysfool]

Continuing the exegetical theme, since the spiritual things in 2:14 are the things spoken of among the mature, and given that the Corinthians are not yet able to grasp those things, the "natural man" is one who is spiritually immature, who has not sufficiently been renewed into the mind of Christ to grasp them. In short, the natural man is the one still thinking in the ways of the natural mind.



It's quite simple, really.

If X is foolishness to group A but not group B, and Y is foolishness to group A and group B, then X is not Y.

The gospel is foolishness to those who are unsaved. The spiritual things spoken of among the mature are foolishness to the unsaved AND the saved who are not yet spiritually mature enough to grasp them.

Think of it like math. To the 1st grader, Algebra is gibberish. To the High School grad (who has learned his math), Algebra makes sense, but advance Calculus is gibberish. However, to the graduate math student, both Algebra and Advanced Calculus are understood clearly.

Paul is chiding the Corinthians, because they have risen to the point of grasping the gospel, but have not matured to the point of grasping the spiritual things which are for the mature.

Thus, the gospel, and the spiritual things of 1 Cor 2:6-3:3 are distinct.

QED

Muz

You have not destroyed my position, but rather confirmed it. The only error you make is in your last sentence, which you purport to be your conclusion. This conclusion does not follow from what you said before.

The Gospel is part of the Spiritual Things of God, and as such, none of the Spiritual Things of God (including the Gospel) is understood or accepted by the natural man, because the natural man cannot discern spiritual things. Therefore, it is perfectly scriptural to say that 1 Cor 2:14 DOES refer to all who are operating as natural man, both saved and unsaved. The unsaved because that is all they can do, and the saved because they can only operate in the spiritual realm as they are enlightened by the Holy Spirit. The Corinthians were not much past the first things (the Gospel) and Paul was explaining to them that they needed to move on and grow into the deeper things of God.

The unsaved cannot even grasp the Gospel, because even that must be spiritually discerned, which is why the Spirit of God must first quicken the man's spirit to be able to discern spiritual things, which confirms clearly the Calvinist position of regeneration preceding faith.

The reason anti-Calvinists don't accept this is because it undercuts their belief that they have a say in their own salvation, and that they play a crucial part in that salvation, in reality the deciding role, which robs God of His Sovereignty, and exalts man in his so-called "free will".

Salvation is of the Lord. If the anti-Calvinists really understood that statement, they would no longer be anti-Calvinists. They would be Calvinists.

 

[themuzicman]

You have not destroyed my position, but rather confirmed it. The only error you make is in your last sentence, which you purport to be your conclusion. This conclusion does not follow from what you said before.

It follows perfectly, when you exegete properly.

The Gospel is part of the Spiritual Things of God, and as such, none of the Spiritual Things of God (including the Gospel) is understood or accepted by the natural man, because the natural man cannot discern spiritual things. Therefore, it is perfectly scriptural to say that 1 Cor 2:14 DOES refer to all who are operating as natural man, both saved and unsaved. The unsaved because that is all they can do, and the saved because they can only operate in the spiritual realm as they are enlightened by the Holy Spirit. The Corinthians were not much past the first things (the Gospel) and Paul was explaining to them that they needed to move on and grow into the deeper things of God.

So, you're reverting back to a previously admitted error. You've already said that the gospel does not need to be included in the things of 2:14, and by extension the things spoken of in 2:6-3:3.

You have yet to explain how saved people were not able to grasp the spiritual things of 2:6-ff.

The unsaved cannot even grasp the Gospel, because even that must be spiritually discerned, which is why the Spirit of God must first quicken the man's spirit to be able to discern spiritual things, which confirms clearly the Calvinist position of regeneration preceding faith.

You state these things with a disturbing lack of exegetical support. Mainly because you fail to explain how the spiritual things of 2:6-ff can include the gospel if saved people, namely the Corinthian church, were still not able to graspe it.

The reason anti-Calvinists don't accept this is because it undercuts their belief that they have a say in their own salvation, and that they play a crucial part in that salvation, in reality the deciding role, which robs God of His Sovereignty, and exalts man in his so-called "free will".

Actually, we address this because Calvinists depend on their invalid exegesis of this verse so heavily, and, at least for me, I want theology this is based in good exegesis.


Muz

 

[nobdysfool]

It follows perfectly, when you exegete properly.

Meaning, "when you exegete it the way I do". Your exegesis is flawed, because you impose the idea of innate ability in the background, and filter your exegesis through that.

So, you're reverting back to a previously admitted error. You've already said that the gospel does not need to be included in the things of 2:14, and by extension the things spoken of in 2:6-3:3.

You have yet to explain how saved people were not able to grasp the spiritual things of 2:6-ff.

I did state why, but in your haste you missed it. here it is again:

Therefore, it is perfectly scriptural to say that 1 Cor 2:14 DOES refer to all who are operating as natural man, both saved and unsaved. The unsaved because that is all they can do, and the saved because they can only operate in the spiritual realm as they are enlightened by the Holy Spirit.

You state these things with a disturbing lack of exegetical support. Mainly because you fail to explain how the spiritual things of 2:6-ff can include the gospel if saved people, namely the Corinthian church, were still not able to graspe it.

If you carefully read what I have said, you will see that I include the Gospel as part of the "spiritual things of God", but do not set aside Paul's indication that the Corinthians had understood the Gospel, and were saved, but did not understand the "deeper things of God", which Paul referred to. You need to read more carefully, because I try to be very precise in what I'm saying, and NOT saying. If I haven't been clear enough for you, then I apologize. I though I was being clear.

Actually, we address this because Calvinists depend on their invalid exegesis of this verse so heavily, and, at least for me, I want theology this is based in good exegesis.

Fine, but your exegesis is not the standard by which all other exegesis should be judged. You see this differently than I do. That much is clear, but that doesn't mean automatically that your exegesis is "de facto" correct, and therefore Calvinist exegesis is "de facto" incorrect. My understanding of this passage is not precluded by your exegesis, it just doesn't go where yours does, and that makes you uncomfortable. We'll have to leave it at that, because neither of us can convince the other, or swing them to the other side, so to speak.

Peace.

 

[RTE (Road to Emmaus)]

Muzicman,



The things of the Spirit are the things which non-believers find foolish. Number one candidate is the basic gospel.

The things of the Spirit are not additional to the gospel, but part of it. The gospel incloses all things of the Spirit. The gospel is simply expanded for the mature so that is becomes more comprehensive: it is not added to with peripherals.

Thus "we preach Christ crucified" includes all teaching in the bible, from every aspect. There is no teaching of the Spirit that is not subsumed by "Christ crucified'. For the Spirit only glorifies Christ's work at Calvary, and nothing else at all. For nothing else is necessary.

All teachings of the Spirit are an illocutionary act emanating from the power of the blood of Christ.


Your hair-splitting is simply an attempt to force a conclusion you so much want to be the case, but which is decidedly silly. And it of course goes against all reasonable hermeneutic constraints, for the bible is written not to the analytical, but the common man, and the common man would never deduce a demarcation line on the word "things", as your pedanticism does.

Thus after speaking of 'the mature', it is ironically the case that you seem to be not one of them, but instead one who is dishonest with the plain thrust of a scriptural passage. No undecided onlooker would take you seriously.

 

[heymikey80]

Quoted by heymikey80:
This interpretation assumes there must be a cause effect among receiving, believing, and understanding, when the relationships aren't cause effect.​

Hi, Mike. The Holy Spirit is received after belief --- that's fully established in Acts11:15-17, connected with 10:43-47. And it is the RECEIVED Spirit that reveals the "spiritual things" of 1Cor2:14.

If you're looking for solid exegesis that refuses denial, this is it.

I know that you think this is a solid exegesis, but Paul states it outright that if the rulers had understood these things they would not have crucified Jesus.

These are not things unavailable to unspiritual people. So these are not things that remain unrevealed to them. They just remain misunderstood and thus rejected.

Yes, the spiritual person can make sense of these points. And the unspiritual person rejects them as silly.

Which is why it's leveraged against your view that people believe before they are born again (which you also mistake for receiving the Spirit).

Here, a question. In what state does a person have to be to be adopted by God? What does he have to have? Belief? Being born of God? Receiving the Spirit of God? What's the prerequisite, Ben? I'd prefer to get your ordo straight before there's a focused discussion. Because you consider that Reformed people have a specific ordo here and are responding that it's inaccurate -- what's your proposal? Organize these terms in order of initial occurrence:

belief
new birth
receive the Spirit
adoption

Quote:
This is demonstrated by the other examples Paul uses.
Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. 1 Cor 2:6

The wisdom can't come from people who are rulers in this age. But why'd they miss it? Why wouldn't at least someone pick up on it if it's so understandable to him?
None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 1 Cor 2:8​

Look at what happened in John10 --- they didn't understand Jesus' Messiahship, because they hadn't believed in Jesus.

No, I'm looking somewhere else. Look at what's stated specifically in the context of the very verse you brought up to discuss. Let's not bound around to another verse until we've demonstrated what's happening in the verse you're discussing. No one is understanding it, yet it's very much available to them.

The structure of "cause and effect" places "belief", as causal.

This verse doesn't say that, and you know it, we've talked about this specific verse before.

Look at Jesus' words in John5:39-47 --- they studied Scripture but REFUSED to believe in the Messiah that Scripture foretold --- WHY? "BECAUSE you seek men's glory rather than God's. Do not think I will accuse you --- MOSES, in whom you've set your hope, will accuse you. Moses wrote of Me --- IF you believed Moses, THEN you would believe Me. But IF you DO NOT believe Moses, HOW will you believe Me?"

And this is more bounding around to another verse. "HOW" indeed -- if they didn't believe before, then they don't believe Him now. This verse says nothing for how they believed.

And in fact you aren't answering that question

Quote:
Paul asserts that their understanding would have resulted in their avoiding the Crucifixion. Yet God didn't permit them to understand it -- and I've little doubt their 'Zero credibility!' charge simply came from an inability or a refusal to understand the data as reality.​

You're not understanding "cause and effect" properly.

Entirely properly for the Scriptural citations so far.

It's not because God did not permit them to understand, it's because they didn't really follow God. John8:42 says "If God were your Father, then you would love Me; for I came from the Father. But you do not understand what I say, BECAUSE you cannot hear, (because) you are of your father the devil." Pure volition. Established beyond denial in John5:39-47, and John8:42.

I'd have cited the exact same statement to point out, they're not born of God. So they wouldn't love Jesus.

"If God were your Father, then you would love Me; for I came from the Father. "

Quote:
So those who are not regenerate, Paul points out they didn't understand the wisdom of the Spirit.​

Not what he says at all --- they didn't undersand the deeper things of the Spirit, because they had not received Christ. THAT is what is happening in 1Cor2:12-14. "Received" (the Spirit), is "believed in Jesus".

I don't see these two as the same -- I see one as consequent from the other. And I see zero reason to consider them to be the same event.

And so that's not what's happening. Belief is not some radical act of the will en vacuo.

QUote:
That's not all Paul is talking about. He's talking about a much larger footprint here. Paul is recognizing that even people with the Spirit may not completely understand what they're receiving. He points to maturity being a mark of those who understand the wisdom of the Spirit. And Paul isn't saying everyone is mature.​

The theme of this thread, is "1Cor2:14 does not assert 'regeneration is necessary TO understand Jesus' salvation'."

The clincher is "received" --- this denotes belief, and belief PRECEDES the "spiritual revelations" of verse 12 and 14. It is fact, and not open to interpretation.

You've now stated yet another theme of this thread. I'm not interested in changing the point. I'll stick with the original point. Otherwise the term "bait & switch" comes to mind. Regeneration precedes faith. Faith is not "receiving things from the Spirit". Faith is not "receiving the Spirit". And regeneration is not "receiving the Spirit". "receive" means "receive". It does not mean "believe". I can even receive you, and not believe you. The Pharisee who held a party for Jesus is one. Greek, my friend. Greek is your friend.

As "received" doesn't denote belief, it is in fact quite an airy interpretation. But as the point of regeneration is not explicitly stated, you'd have to check out what the words actually meant, and come up with an order, a sequence, to what follows from what.

And to do that you'd have to examine very critically your position that belief, regeneration, adoption, and receiving the Spirit are all the same thing. Because Paul doesn't accept them as being the same thing. Some are dependent on others.

So as I asked at first -- what's your order of salvation?

 

[themuzicman]

The things of the Spirit are the things which non-believers find foolish. Number one candidate is the basic gospel.

Where does Paul lump salvation is with the "things of the Spirit"?

The things of the Spirit are not additional to the gospel, but part of it. The gospel incloses all things of the Spirit. The gospel is simply expanded for the mature so that is becomes more comprehensive: it is not added to with peripherals.

That's not how Paul describes it. Paul holds the gospel on one side, and these other things on another.

Thus "we preach Christ crucified" includes all teaching in the bible, from every aspect. There is no teaching of the Spirit that is not subsumed by "Christ crucified'. For the Spirit only glorifies Christ's work at Calvary, and nothing else at all. For nothing else is necessary.

And you're beginning to twist the text as Paul writes it. Paul makes a CLEAR contrast between the gospel he preached to the Corinthians, and the spiritual things spoke of among the mature.

All teachings of the Spirit are an illocutionary act emanating from the power of the blood of Christ.

However, are not necessary for the preaching of the gospel.

Your hair-splitting is simply an attempt to force a conclusion you so much want to be the case, but which is decidedly silly. And it of course goes against all reasonable hermeneutic constraints, for the bible is written not to the analytical, but the common man, and the common man would never deduce a demarcation line on the word "things", as your pedanticism does.

Gee, a simple reading of Scripture clearly places the things spoken of in 1 Cor 2:14 outside of what the saved Corinthians grasped. You're the one having to construct this convoluted logic to make it all work for you.

Thus after speaking of 'the mature', it is ironically the case that you seem to be not one of them, but instead one who is dishonest with the plain thrust of a scriptural passage. No undecided onlooker would take you seriously.

Ah,the last bastion of the loser: Insult the intelligence and veracity of the other guy.

Muz

 

[nobdysfool]

Where does Paul lump salvation is with the "things of the Spirit"?

1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
​

Both the preaching of the Cross, which is the Gospel, and the things of God, which are spiritual, are deemed to be foolish to the natural man, the ones who are perishing.

Rom 8:5-9 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. (6) For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace. (7) Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. (8) So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. (9) But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
​

Rom 8:13-14 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. (14) For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

​

Paul makes it clear that those who are perishing are walking after the flesh, and cannot be subject to the Law of God. Such are those who perceive the Preaching of the Cross (the Gospel) as foolishness.

You would be hard pressed to make a case that the Gospel is not one of the "Things of God", because Paul indicates that it is, by his assessment that the natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit, because they are foolish to him, and those who are perishing perceive the Gospel as foolishness. Paul himself makes the connection.

Two things which are both described the same way are logically synonymous. They are the same thing.

That's not how Paul describes it. Paul holds the gospel on one side, and these other things on another.

The result is the same, so it makes no difference. Paul is not calling the Gospel unspiritual, but it seems that you are.

And you're beginning to twist the text as Paul writes it. Paul makes a CLEAR contrast between the gospel he preached to the Corinthians, and the spiritual things spoke of among the mature.

The contrast he made was that of degree, not kind. What you are, in effect, saying is that the Gospel is not spiritual, and has no spiritual component, which is absurd.

However, are not necessary for the preaching of the gospel.

God must intervene for the Gospel to not be perceived as foolish to those to whom it is preached. That much is a crystal clear logical inference from the text.

Gee, a simple reading of Scripture clearly places the things spoken of in 1 Cor 2:14 outside of what the saved Corinthians grasped. You're the one having to construct this convoluted logic to make it all work for you.

Unless the Holy Spirit opens the understanding, no one can perceive the Things of God, from the Gospel right on down to the deep things of God. .

Ah,the last bastion of the loser: Insult the intelligence and veracity of the other guy.

Like you've never done that? C'mon, show a little bit of grace, and quit being so thin-skinned. We can have these discussions without all the personal jibes and invective. You'll get a much better hearing if you do.

 

[themuzicman]

1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
​

Both the preaching of the Cross, which is the Gospel, and the things of God, which are spiritual, are deemed to be foolish to the natural man, the ones who are perishing.

However, both could be foolishness, and yet both could be referring to different things. There is nothing tying them together, but context that suggests that one is NOT included in the other.

Rom 8:5-9 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. (6) For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace. (7) Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. (8) So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. (9) But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Rom 8:13-14 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. (14) For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

​

Paul makes it clear that those who are perishing are walking after the flesh, and cannot be subject to the Law of God. Such are those who perceive the Preaching of the Cross (the Gospel) as foolishness.

Um... Paul is talking about the mind being set on the flesh or on the spirit. In Romans 12:1-2, Paul calls for the renewing of your minds

Romans 8:6 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able [to do so],​

So, again, we're talking about the maturing of the Christian from being carnal or fleshly minded (just as the Corinthians had to do) to being spiritually minded.

You would be hard pressed to make a case that the Gospel is not one of the "Things of God", because Paul indicates that it is, by his assessment that the natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit, because they are foolish to him, and those who are perishing perceive the Gospel as foolishness. Paul himself makes the connection.

It's not difficult at all. In fact, Paul makes it quite apparent. He clearly contrasts the two in Chapter two. All you've said is that X is foolishness and Y is foolishness, therefore X=Y. That's simply not logical, and the context of the saved Corinthians not understanding Y stands against you.

Two things which are both described the same way are logically synonymous. They are the same thing.

No, they're logically similar. They're both foolishness to the world. You've not made a case for them being the same, or one being a subset of the other.

A single mom in poverty buying a new Mercedes is foolishness.

A new lottery winner spending all his money on hookers is foolishness.

But buying a new Mercedes is NOT the same as spending money on hookers.

Same thing, here. The gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing. Tge spiritual wisdom spoken of among the mature is foolishness to the world.

However, that does NOT in any way equate the two.

The result is the same, so it makes no difference. Paul is not calling the Gospel unspiritual, but it seems that you are.

Actually, Paul makes a specific distinction between the gospel and the spiritual things in 2:6-2:ff. We ought to pay attention to what he says.

The contrast he made was that of degree, not kind. What you are, in effect, saying is that the Gospel is not spiritual, and has no spiritual component, which is absurd.

I've not said that, either. The problem is that the spiritual things of 2:6-2:ff, including 2:14 (as you admitted earlier) were not grasped by the Corinthians. You have yet to address that adequately.

God must intervene for the Gospel to not be perceived as foolish to those to whom it is preached. That much is a crystal clear logical inference from the text.

More specifically, God's teaching must come to any before they are able come (John 6:44-45.)

Unless the Holy Spirit opens the understanding, no one can perceive the Things of God, from the Gospel right on down to the deep things of God. .

There is no Scripture to support this position.

Like you've never done that? C'mon, show a little bit of grace, and quit being so thin-skinned. We can have these discussions without all the personal jibes and invective. You'll get a much better hearing if you do.

I think this kind of thing undermines one's credibility.

Muz

 

[Bridget Marie]

The unsaved cannot even grasp the Gospel, because even that must be spiritually discerned, which is why the Spirit of God must first quicken the man's spirit to be able to discern spiritual things,

Not only can they not grasp the Gospel, but they hate the light and will not come to it. John 3:19-21 gives us such a clear picture of unregenerate man:

"And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. For whoever does wicked things hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been carried out in God."

This passage shows clearly that God is the causation of any man coming to the light. And we cannot conclude that this simply means He draws all men to the light because it is emphasizing that when GOD is behind it, they will come. John 6:44:

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets, 'And they will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me."

It is so beautifully clear that it is ALL of God.

 

[nobdysfool]

However, both could be foolishness, and yet both could be referring to different things. There is nothing tying them together, but context that suggests that one is NOT included in the other.

I disagree. Paul's purpose was to chide the Corinthians into moving on from the basics (i.e.the Gospel), by showing them that there is more, and if they don't press on and begin to mature, they are little better off than those who reject the Gospel. He draws a parallel. He may be treating the Gospel and the deeper things of God as two distinct things, but they are connected.

Um... Paul is talking about the mind being set on the flesh or on the spirit. In Romans 12:1-2, Paul calls for the renewing of your minds

Romans 8:6 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able [to do so],​

So, again, we're talking about the maturing of the Christian from being carnal or fleshly minded (just as the Corinthians had to do) to being spiritually minded.

And the mind of the unregenerate is set on what? Rainbows and moonbeams? C'mon, muz, that argument won't fly, and you know it. The unregenerate mind is set on the flesh, and therefore cannot be subject to the Law of God, because it is not able to. That's a very strong argument for monergistic regeneration, so that the mind can understand the Gospel!

It's not difficult at all. In fact, Paul makes it quite apparent. He clearly contrasts the two in Chapter two. All you've said is that X is foolishness and Y is foolishness, therefore X=Y. That's simply not logical, and the context of the saved Corinthians not understanding Y stands against you.

No it doesn't, unless you are prepared to show overwhelmingly from scripture that the Gospel is not spiritual, and therefore not a subset of the Wisdom of God. Lot's of luck with that!

Scripture says the Christ is the Wisdom of God. In 1 Cor 1:23-24, Paul states that the Preaching of the Cross is a stumblingblock to Jews, and folly (foolishness) to Gentiles. Paul speaks in chap 2 of the deep things of God as Wisdom of God, so we see these things all tie together. Christ and Him Crucified is the Wisdom of God, and the deep things of God are the Wisdom of God, so it is logically correct to say that they are ALL the Wisdom of God

Logically, two things that are equal to a third thing, are equal to each other.

No, they're logically similar. They're both foolishness to the world. You've not made a case for them being the same, or one being a subset of the other.

I most certainly have, and so has scripture, rightly understood.

A single mom in poverty buying a new Mercedes is foolishness.

A new lottery winner spending all his money on hookers is foolishness.

But buying a new Mercedes is NOT the same as spending money on hookers.

Apples and oranges, and therefore not a legitimate example. Here's a better example:

1 + 3 = 4; 2 + 2 = 4; Therefore, 1 + 3 = 2 + 2

Same thing, here. The gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing. Tge spiritual wisdom spoken of among the mature is foolishness to the world.

And Paul says it is also foolishness to those who have not renewed their minds to go beyond the first things. (1 Cor.2:14). That WAS your point in the beginning, was it not?

However, that does NOT in any way equate the two.

They both come from the same thing, i.e. the wisdom of God.

Actually, Paul makes a specific distinction between the gospel and the spiritual things in 2:6-2:ff. We ought to pay attention to what he says.
I've not said that, either. The problem is that the spiritual things of 2:6-2:ff, including 2:14 (as you admitted earlier) were not grasped by the Corinthians. You have yet to address that adequately.

Perhaps you missed it yet again. I said (and I quote), "Therefore, it is perfectly scriptural to say that 1 Cor 2:14 DOES refer to all who are operating as natural man, both saved and unsaved. The unsaved because that is all they can do, and the saved because they can only operate in the spiritual realm as they are enlightened by the Holy Spirit."

and, what is 2:6-2:ff?

More specifically, God's teaching must come to any before they are able come (John 6:44-45.)

Unless they are regenerated, it will all be foolishness to them, every bit of it.

There is no Scripture to support this position.

You're kidding, right? 1 Cor. 1 and 2 are the support, and the very thing we're talking about.

I think this kind of thing undermines one's credibility.

In what way? Because I point out that discussion need not involve invective and personal insults? Maybe it struck a little too close to home for your comfort. I have tried not to be that way, but some here sorely tempt me. I thought we could have such a discussion, but I wonder if you can do so without being condescending, and snarky. I'll say this, you have been better about it, but old habits die hard. I give as good as I get, you should know that by now. And I have the scars to prove it. Let's not spend our time on such.

 

[justsurfing]

Hi Ben,

There is no such thing as the disjointed Spirit. Think of the Spirit as a "pop up"... like taking positional "space".

There is nothing that is of the Spirit outside the Spirit.

There is nothing contrary to the Spirit in the Spirit.

In or out.

Think of salvation as "in or out" of the Spirit.

There is no salvation outside of the Spirit.

There is no believing outside of the Spirit.

There is no faith outside of the Spirit.

Why aren't people saved? Because, pivotally locationally, they are not in the Spirit.

When does the Bible declare people are saved? When the Spirit is in them.

Soooo... just this simple.

We are born according to this flesh in mere humanity outside the Spirit at a certain dimension. The Spirit is not in us.

There's an inter-relationship there. If we are not in the Spirit - the Spirit is not in us... and we are not saved.

BUT... when the Spirit is in us - we are in the Spirit... and we are saved.

SO... what needs to happen here??

The Spirit has to come inside of us.

Any questions.

Nice to see you, Ben. See the Spirit as a tangible Person who is Spirit... and see.

Grace and peace.

 

[cygnusx1]

No, we cannot, and I find it rather funny that you're looking to take a poll...as though majority rule somehow has anything to do with truth. Several times over I've explained this passage, and regardless of the fact I know you will weasel out and not respond yet again, I will once again provide the explanation that you are unable to overcome.



There are several glaring errors here.

First is the notion that the "things" of verses 12 and 14 are exactly the same. The word "things" appears six times just in this chapter. To insist that such a broad ranging word as "things" refers to the same specific items every time it is used is simply poor hermeneutics.

The fact that the particular spiritual things Paul speaks of early in the chapter are clearly deeper truths of God does not therefore mean that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not a spiritual thing. Paul's words in 1 Cor 2:14 perfectly coincide with his words in 1 Cor 1:18. In the latter, the word of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, and in the former the natural man does not accept the things of God for they are foolishness to him. Moreover, he CANNOT because such things are spiritually discerned.

The message is abundantly clear: the word of the Cross is a spiritual truth, one which natural man finds foolishness and cannot understand because the Spirit has not given him discernment.

I know what you will say, Ben. You will offer up the most absurd of explanations: that man will put his full faith and trust in something he finds utterly foolish. One could easily cite that as a definition of insanity. To expect that man's salvation depends upon his willingness to trust in something he finds untrustworthy is itself foolishness.

[/left]
[/center]


Again, the things revealed by the received Spirit as referred to by Paul were the deeper things of God he was in turn imparting to the believers. It still does not change the fact that verse 14 lays forth a much more encompassing principle: that unregenerate men do not and cannot accept the things of God for they find them foolishness, and the word of the Cross is counted among those things.



The Holy Spirit need not indwell a person to reveal things to him or give him understanding. That it is the indwelling Spirit that reveals the deeper things of God to Paul does not preclude the Spirit from operating in such a manner (as it clearly does throughout Scripture).



It cannot, which is precisely the dilemma you put yourself in when it comes to chapter one, where you are forced to offer up the absurdity that men embrace foolishness.



Nope. Again, you would have us believe that men must believe in things they don't understand and find foolishness in order to then understand them. That, my friends, is insanity.



"Zero credibility" is resorting to taking a headcount to determine whether or not somebody can cite a verse of Scripture in an argument.

"Zero credibility" is claiming nobody can answer your points when you refuse to acknowledge the posts of someone who answers every single one of them.

Please understand, I do mean that respectfully.



Let me ask you this, Ben. If the poll turns out to be overwhelmingly against you, would you stop all the complaining about the fact that we continue to use the verse? I certainly expect that if it turns out in your favor you will constantly point to it as reason we cannot use it.

...

 

[RTE (Road to Emmaus)]

muzicman,


Paul makes a CLEAR contrast between the gospel he preached to the Corinthians, and the spiritual things spoke of among the mature.
Rather, he tells us that no spiritual things can be understood by the natural man.

The natural man exists in all Christians. The degree of natural man in each, is directly proportional to the degree of spiritual things not understood. If one is 100% natural man (non-born-again) he will understand nothing.

So Paul outlines a principle: nothing natural understands anything spiritual. You may not then take the higher end of the spirituality spectrum underwritten by the principle, and exclude the primary end of it. For the higher end of spirituality emanates from the primary end of spirituality, and not vice versa. In other words, there is no spirituality outside of the gospel message.

 

[frumanchu]

So, Ben...how long will this poll remain open?

At this point the poll is heavily in our favor. Does that mean you will accept that this is a valid argument from the Calvinist side?

 

[nobdysfool]

So, Ben...how long will this poll remain open?

At this point the poll is heavily in our favor. Does that mean you will accept that this is a valid argument from the Calvinist side?

I'm not holding my breath.....

Anyway, it appears that Ben has left the building.....I interpret that as conceding the argument, whether he wants to see it that way or not.

 

[RTE (Road to Emmaus)]

Ben has left because he was not able to tell us what his "election" actually did.

But when he resurfaces with new zest, we'll ask him again.

 

[themuzicman]

I disagree. Paul's purpose was to chide the Corinthians into moving on from the basics (i.e.the Gospel), by showing them that there is more, and if they don't press on and begin to mature, they are little better off than those who reject the Gospel. He draws a parallel. He may be treating the Gospel and the deeper things of God as two distinct things, but they are connected.

And yet, Paul specifically disconnects them in 2:6

And the mind of the unregenerate is set on what? Rainbows and moonbeams? C'mon, muz, that argument won't fly, and you know it. The unregenerate mind is set on the flesh, and therefore cannot be subject to the Law of God, because it is not able to. That's a very strong argument for monergistic regeneration, so that the mind can understand the Gospel!

Except that Paul is talking about regenerate people, here. He's saying that when your mind is set on the flesh, you cannot be subject to the law of God.

No it doesn't, unless you are prepared to show overwhelmingly from scripture that the Gospel is not spiritual, and therefore not a subset of the Wisdom of God. Lot's of luck with that!

Actually, I don't need to show that. I'll demonstrate in your counter example below.

Scripture says the Christ is the Wisdom of God. In 1 Cor 1:23-24, Paul states that the Preaching of the Cross is a stumblingblock to Jews, and folly (foolishness) to Gentiles. Paul speaks in chap 2 of the deep things of God as Wisdom of God, so we see these things all tie together. Christ and Him Crucified is the Wisdom of God, and the deep things of God are the Wisdom of God, so it is logically correct to say that they are ALL the Wisdom of God

Again, this is falsified by the fact that the Corinthians, who were already saved could not grasp the wisdom spoken of among the mature, references in 2:6. The wisdom of 2:6 simply cannot include the gospel. The only way around it is Nang's way out, where she claims that the Corinthians weren't actually saved, something that is easily refuted.

Logically, two things that are equal to a third thing, are equal to each other.

LOL..

I most certainly have, and so has scripture, rightly understood.

Except that you contradict yourself, as I just showed. If there are saved people who cannot grasp some wisdom, then, logically, that wisdom cannot include the gospel. QED.

Apples and oranges, and therefore not a legitimate example. Here's a better example:

1 + 3 = 4; 2 + 2 = 4; Therefore, 1 + 3 = 2 + 2

The only way that this works is if everything that is foolishness to the unsaved is the wisdom of God.

As I've shown, there are things that are foolish to the unsaved that have nothing to do with the wisdom of God.

The problem you run into is that you don't grasp the difference between the general and the specific. The gospel is specific. The wisdom spoken of among the mature is specific. However, foolishness is general. Foolishness is a category that includes an innumerable host of actions the majority of which have nothing to do with either the gospel or the wisdom spoke of among the mature.

Getting a loan for a car, and not having the income to make the payments is foolish.

In your example, we'd call this 4+0=4. Therefore, the gospel = the wisdom spoken of among the mature = Getting a loan for a car and not having the income to make the payments.

It just doesn't work. You can't say that X and Y fit into the same general category and then say that X=Y. It's basic logic. (Being before 8am, my mind isn't recalling the term. I think this is a category error.)

And Paul says it is also foolishness to those who have not renewed their minds to go beyond the first things. (1 Cor.2:14). That WAS your point in the beginning, was it not?

No. My point in the beginning is that the things in 2:14 cannot include the gospel because saved people (the Corinthians) were not able to grasp them.

They both come from the same thing, i.e. the wisdom of God.

Yes, but one is the gospel. The other is wisdom only spoken among the mature. They are two different things that happen to frequently fall into the same categories.

Perhaps you missed it yet again. I said (and I quote), "Therefore, it is perfectly scriptural to say that 1 Cor 2:14 DOES refer to all who are operating as natural man, both saved and unsaved. The unsaved because that is all they can do, and the saved because they can only operate in the spiritual realm as they are enlightened by the Holy Spirit."

and, what is 2:6-2:ff?

I agree. It does. That's not the issue. What you fail to address is how the Corinthians cannot grasp these spiritual things, and yet be saved.

Unless they are regenerated, it will all be foolishness to them, every bit of it.

That's great.

You're kidding, right? 1 Cor. 1 and 2 are the support, and the very thing we're talking about.

And, as I've repeatedly demonstrated, the things spoken of after 2:6 cannot include the gospel because those who had already grasped the gospel could not grasp them.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

Ben has left because he was not able to tell us what his "election" actually did.

But when he resurfaces with new zest, we'll ask him again.

Well, that's easy enough. Election defines the terms of salvation.

Muz

 

[nobdysfool]

Well, that's easy enough. Election defines the terms of salvation.

Muz

As opposed to Ben, who says salvation defines the terms of election......

And FYI, Ben is not able to post right now, due to some personal medical issues, which I am not at liberty to divulge. He'll be back when he is able. Of that I have no doubt.

 

[MamaZ]

As opposed to Ben, who says salvation defines the terms of election......

And FYI, Ben is not able to post right now, due to some personal medical issues, which I am not at liberty to divulge. He'll be back when he is able. Of that I have no doubt.

Praying for a speedy recovery for Ben.