1Cor2:14 is not "Calvinistic"

[frumanchu]

And "God is well pleased, THROUGH the foolishness of the Gospel preached, to save those WHO BELIEVE." 1Cor1:21

God saves those who believe, in SPITE of what first appeared foolish to them. You need to find a verse that says "God CHANGES the message from 'foolish' to 'power', so that men CAN believe".

You will never find it in Scripture.

One need not find it explicitly stated in Scripture...it's plain common sense! What you advocate is that men must necessarily put their full faith and trust...the very fate of their souls...in something they find utterly foolish. Only AFTER they put their faith in it is it no longer foolishness to them.

That position defies basic common sense. The logical conclusion of your position leaves no distinction between faith and insanity.

We are not saved "by grace".

We are saved "by grace THROUGH FAITH". Robertson on Eph2:8 says "Grace is God's part, faith is ours."

A.T. Robertson did not write Scripture. Robertson is a Greek linguist, and as such he is presuming to take time in his translation of the Greek to make a theological argument.

I do find it curious that you are selective as to when you cite Robertson (since it has been shown in other instances that Robertson has directly contradicted you) and as to when a commentator is even authoritative (since it has been shown in other instances where numerous commentators, particularly NON-Reformed commentators, have directly contradicted you).

Your own poll has defeated you by more than a two-to-one margin, Ben. Will you accept the results of your poll...that the citation of this verse, whether or not you agree with the interpretation...is in fact a valid argument? Or shall we conduct more polls until you find a favorable outcome?

 

[frumanchu]

In the second case, men can believe through foolishness of the message and BE saved. 1Cor1:21.

You quite clearly do not understand the rhetorical manner in which Paul is speaking here, Ben. It is PATENTLY ABSURD to declare that men must believe in something they find utter foolishness. To say they "believe through the foolishness" is nothing more than nonsensical linguistic slight of hand. If the Gospel is foolishness to them, then you are saying they must believe through it in order to believe in it. It simply makes no sense at all.

In the first place, this verse plainly places "RECEIVED Spirit", before "reveal spiritual things". There is no argument or defense; this verse cannot be used in Calvinistic discussions.

As we will see shortly, you have a very poor habit of using the mere order of words in an English translation as a means of divining temporal or logical order of concepts. That is an invalid hermeneutic and an unsound basis for an argument.

There is abundant argument and defense, and it is becoming clear that this verse has created such problems for you that you wish to have it stricken from all conversation so as not to have to address it any further. Were we to take the same tactic you would have a fit over it, yet you post public polls in some attempt to appeal to truth by headcount (yet ignore the obvious fact that the results are not in your favor).

Show me from Scripture how a person can RECEIVE the Spirit, apart from belief in Jesus.

We don't need to. That has not been, and never will be, our argument.

However, I do challenge YOU to show us from Scripture how the Spirit cannot reveal things to men, or otherwise operate upon man in any way, without first having indwelt him.

According to John1:12, those WHO believe and WHO RECEIVE Jesus, THEN receive the right to become adopted. There is no denial, Mike.

John1:12 places "believe/receive", before "adoption". And "adoption", is "new-birth".

The word "THEN" does not appear in the text, either in English or in Greek, Ben. That is your imposition of temporal order upon the verse where there is none. What the verse actually says is that those same ones who received him and were given the right to become adopted, were the same ones who were born of the Spirit. It does not establish either one as being before the other temporally or logically. Only by inserting words into the verse, as you have done above, can you make the case for a logical or temporal order.

I challenge you to find ANY Greek linguist that would support the notion that the grammar of this verse establishes a temporal or logical order of regeneration following, and being the result of, the previous statements of the verse.

I submit that you cannot find any, and in the absence of such would expect you to adhere to your own standards and drop this verse altogether from the "Responsible Grace" defense.

We're understanding it fine; the "things", are revealed by the RECEIVED Spirit. There is no defense against that --- in no sense can this verse be made to say "things must be revealed BEFORE a man believes savingly in Jesus and receives the Spirit."

It can been and has been, yet you refuse to acknowledge or answer it. I submit that you CANNOT answer to the defense I've laid forth, but instead simply repeat your claims over and over again while the poll you hoped would vindicate you has turned out to be another defeat.

With respect, this bit about "BOUNDING", seems like an excuse not to answer the Scriptures I've presented.

Much like the excuse of "things didn't go well in the past" seems like an excuse not to answer the Scriptures and arguments I have presented

This verse DOES say WHY they WILL not believe --- because they seek men's glory rather than God's. Jesus plainly says: "IF you DO not believe Moses (who wrote of Me), HOW will you believe My words?"

Jesus forgot to include "God-decides"? No, He didn't.

He didn't have to. That is an argument from silence on your part...a blatant logical fallacy. Of course they seek men's glory rather than God's...because there are none that seek Him (Rom 3).

If God were your Father
If you believed Moses' words

Their choice, not God's.

It doesn't say anything about them choosing to do anything, nor does it say anything about why they would choose to do anything. It simply makes statements of fact.

This thread is about 1Cor2:14, how it's been refuted (in the presumed Calvinist understanding) time and time again, but still keeps getting asserted as if NOT refuted.

You can put it in red, boldface text in ever post you make, and it still won't change the fact that Calvinists HAVE in fact provided quite credible arguments in support of their interpretation of this passage, and the fact that you would make such a statement after repeatedly refusing to address posts where I have explicitly addressed your positions and then claim that Calvinists cannot refute them smells of desperation and defeat.

Let's not forget...this thread is a POLL soliciting a head count on who thinks this verse can be used in these discussions...and you are losing badly!

The passage says that "received-Spirit", happens BEFORE "reveal-spiritual-things".

You either must accept that "spiritual-things" does NOT include "saving-faith-in-Christ", or propose some way that the Spirit is received apart from faith.

False dilemma. You have no justification whatsoever for insisting that the generic noun "things" refers exclusively and specifically to precisely the same individual things in each and every instance of the word, and then when the obvious connection between 1 Cor 1:18 and 1 Cor 2:14 is pointed out you run back the absurdity that men "believe through the foolishness" (even though Scripture plainly says they are unable to).

Really? How can the Spirit be received, BEFORE faith?

THAT'S NOT WHAT HE SAID! He did not say the Spirit can be received before faith. He said faith and receiving the Spirit are not the same thing. They are logically separate and distinct concepts, however inextricably related they may be.

The thread is on 1Cor2:14; the THINGS, cannot include saving-faith.

The Spirit is not received APART from saving-faith.

Non-sequitor. You have yet to provide proof that the "things" in v14 is limited to the "things" of the previous verses, particularly when the context and language does not support it and verse 18 of the previous chapter flatly contradicts it.

The order is explicitly stated in John1:12 those WHO believe, WHO receive Jesus, gain the right to BECOME adopted children.

And only by ADDING WORDS to those two verses can you force regeneration to be a subsequent and consequential event.

 

[frumanchu]

Men can believe THROUGH what was previously "foolish" --- it is belief that changes the message from "foolish", to "power". Calvinism can only say, "Oops".

Oops?!? The Calvinist can only shake his head at the sheer absurdity of such a position.

Listen to what you are saying, Ben. You are saying that men must believe in the foolishness....put their full faith and trust in something they find utterly foolish....place the fate of their soul in the hands of something they find absurd...and ONLY AFTER THAT does it cease being foolishness.

With respect, how can you POSSIBLY teach this and expect anyone to believe such a thing?!?

 

[frumanchu]

Do you accept that John6:44 uses "helkuo-draw-DRAG", and that John12:32 ALSO uses "helkuo-draw-drag"?

Do YOU accept that the agent doing the drawing is DIFFERENT in the two verses?

The agent in John 6:44 is the Father.

The agent in John 12:32 is the Son.

"If I be lifted up, I will DRAW ALL MEN to Myself". Not "some", not "some-of-all-types", not "some-few-PREDESTINED", but "all".

The Greek word almost invariably means "all" in the "from all types and categories" sense and not the "individually without exception" sense. Furthermore, it is a clear reference to the incident with Moses and the bronze serpent where it was lifted up among the people and all who looked to it were saved. Likewise, all who look to Jesus are saved.

Rom11:32 says "God has mercy on ALL". Not "some", not "few", but "all".

Did He have mercy upon Pharaoh?

I believe this is the part where YOU say "oops."

 

[frumanchu]

Quoted by RTE:
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.​

Belief causes election. Not vice-versa.

Look at all the posts I've just made; you will not be able to refute the Scriptural positions. I wish you would try, and not just tell people "don't play his game".

My "game", is correctly exegeting God's inspired word. Nowhere does it assert "sovereign-election".

Yet, this thread, is 1Cor2:14 --- it can never again be used in Calvinistic discussions.

I have shown clearly and IRREFUTABLY where you have FAILED to correctly exegete God's inspired Word, and yet you do not even try to address my points and instead continue to make claims that we cannot even address them. Then you hide behind excuses about past encounters.

You have failed completely in making your case to somehow remove a verse of Scripture from our discussions. Even your ill-advised poll reflects this defeat.

 

[frumanchu]

You proved my point --- per Calvinism, it would have to cease being "foolish", so that they could believe. In no sense could he have penned "God is pleased, THROUGH/BY/BY-MEANS-OF foolishness to save those who believe", if it must cease BEING foolish BEFORE someone can believe.

I am completely in awe of the fact that you would go so far in your zeal to argue against Calvinism that you would embrace such utter absurdity.

Again, please consider for a moment what you are saying. You are actually explicitly saying that men must put their full faith and trust...the very fate of their soul...in something they find foolish.

I can't tell if it's willful ignorance because of your hatred of Calvinism or simply a reading comprehension problem (I don't mean that as an insult) that keeps you from understanding the obvious use of literary device when it comes to "foolishness" and "wisdom" in this passage. There is a brilliant use of irony in this passage to drive home the point of the juxtaposition of God's view and the world's view.

How can you deny the clear implication in v22-24 that not all Jews, Greeks and Gentiles are called (a notion which Rom 8:30 makes clear)? As such, it is clear that the Gospel is wisdom only to those who are called. You cannot reconcile that, even under the absurd notion that men must believe in what they find utter foolishness to be saved. Furthermore you cannot reconcile that with the clear fact that 1:18 and 2:14 speak to the same issue and directly contradict your position.

It doesn't say "Foolish to the REST, but you'll believe because you're elected and it's NOT foolish to you".

It says, "God is please to save those who, THROUGH the foolishness of the message, believe."

Though the message appears "foolish" to the lost, it still has the power to save.

What's almost maddening is the fact that you put "foolish" in quotes but cannot see that that is exactly how Paul would be writing it if the equivalent device was available in the Greek. You are not even consistent at this point on how you approach the term "foolish."

There is no "hard pressed", at all --- it's clearly stated.

The THINGS of verse 14, are the SAME THINGS of verse 12. The received Spirit reveals those things.

The Spirit is received by belief. You know the verses (see Eph1:13, Acts11:17, etcetera).

You have NO CASE WHATSOEVER to prove that the "things" in v12 is precisely and explicitly the same as the "things" in v14 beyond the simple use of the same common word. I have presented a reasonable case for our understanding of it...A CASE WHICH YOU CONTINUE TO IGNORE...and submit that you have no justification in insisting that we can no longer eve mention this verse just because you say so.

PDC. It is not a "requirement", it is stated fact.

You are ignorant of Old Testament history, Ben. The Spirit reveals things to men throughout Old Testament times without indwelling them, and this quite clearly included unbelievers.

I see only four choices:

1. Provide some way of explaining how the Spirit is received, apart from belief.
2. Explain how the "things" of verse 14, are different from the "things" of verse 12.
3. Accept that this verse does NOT assert "regeneration is required before men can believe in Christ".
4. Ignore the clear facts in the passage, pretend it's not refuted, keep citing 1Cor2:14 --- and everyone will perceive that citation as stubbornly non-credible.

1. Not necessary as this is not our position
2. This HAS already been explained...AND HAS BEEN IGNORED BY YOU.
3. Not a chance...you've provided no rational argument to give us reason to
4. We don't need to ignore any clear facts. We've dealt with your "refutations" and shown them to be not only insufficient but patently absurd. We continue to cite the verse, and according to your own poll the majority of people see it as perfectly credible.

Oops

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by heymikey80:
Ben, the reason it's quoted as if it's not been refuted is quite clearly because it's not been refuted. After over a hundred postings on the subject, you haven't convinced those who do cite the passage in 1 Cor 2 that you've refuted any aspect of their assertion.​

That's because the questions have not been answered. Let's go back to "square one".

Calvinists perceive that 1Cor2:14 asserts "natural men (unregenerated) cannot believe-savingly in Jesus, because such belief is one of the THINGS that they cannot understand." Here are the choices --- you must pick one, even if by default you pick the LAST one:

1. The THINGS in verse 14, are the same THINGS as in verse 12; these things are revealed by the RECEIVED Spirit --- "received", means "BELIEF in JESUS".

2. The "THINGS" in verse 14, are not the same "things" as in verse 12 (explain this).

3. "RECEIVED", does not denote "belief" (explain in light of Eph1:13, and Acts11:17).

4. Do not respond, pretend the "Calvinistic perception" has not been refuted, and everyone will perceive stubborn refusal of clear doctrine

I mean no disrespect, Mike, but one of these MUST be chosen; and that's just the facts, not "something Ben is imposing".

Quote:
1 Cor 12 deals with wisdom from God, and it's clear that those with the Spirit have the wisdom of God. It's also clear that those who are unspiritual do not have this wisdom. You state that there are no carnal Christians -- and Paul states that there are no spiritual people who are not "us", just Greeks and Jews and rulers looking for wisdom and signs they can't find and can't see or receive.​

I've been accused of jumping around indiscriminately. Please stay with the verse (unless you cite other verses with valid connections) --- are the THINGS in verse 14, different from the THINGS in verse 12? Can the Spirit be RECEIVED apart from belief in Jesus?

Quote:
The passage does not sit down and address the question of whether spiritual wisdom is the dividing line between belief and unbelief. Why you're jumping to trying to prove what it doesn't say, well, no matter, but it does argue against your view. If you have to prove Paul assumes something he doesn't say in this passage, and that is clearly a long-winded conclusion on its own, then your refutation is already lost.​

Black and white, Mike --- are the THINGS different, or can the Spirit be received APART from belief in Jesus?

Quote:
But the passage does address the question of whether someone who accepts spiritual wisdom is actually spiritual. If only Christians are spiritual people, of only believers are spiritual, Paul has already said the carnal person doesn't accept this wisdom. So -- end of story. Non-Christians can't accept this wisdom, because they're carnal.​

Whoever receives the Spirit, is spiritual.

Natural men do not accept the things of the Spirit of God, because they have not believed savingly in Jesus and received the Spirit. Find any fault in that statement.

Quote:
You're not getting anywhere with this refutation because it's built on a vast array of assumptions you haven't established as true. Not least is your order of salvation. You've demonstrated that by assertions you're pressing into John 6 and John 1 (which again, are not established and acutely controverted, so can't be used to refute a position on 1 Cor 2).​

Oh I'm getting somewhere; one of those four questions will be answered by Calvinists, or #4 will be selected by default, and everyone will know the refutation stands.

This is no "imposition of rules", it's simple fact; answer the questions, or concede the point.

Don't-answer, and concede the point.

Quote:
If you flew all thousand pieces of your theology in formation, they might deny some position you wish to deny -- within your theology. But that hasn't really refuted anything either. That would say that your particular theology would not accept such a position. It would say nothing about other theologies.

Those who disagree with you don't think the thousand pieces of your theology will actually fly in the first place.​

If such disagreement is founded on Scripture, what is the Scripture?

Quote:
And making the assertion that your position is drawn from Scripture and thus must be Scripture's only real meaning, that doesn't help your cause, either. It essentially means you're not answering other proposals for what Scripture means. You're simply jumping from one idiosyncratic view of a prooftext to another. When we point out one idiosyncratic view doesn't fly in context, you jump to another verse -- which in our view doesn't fly in context, either. And so, since you don't concentrate on a specific verse in its context, the argument falls apart. No one Scripture is being considered for what it means and what it can't mean and what it permits. If the pieces don't perform as advertised, then the assembly of those pieces is unlikely to fly.​

Four understandings, Mike. Pick one, or pick #4 by not-choosing.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by MamaZ:

Your Idea of "just" is in human terms. For justly we all deserve death and Hell. For we have all sinned and came very short of the Glory of God. This is why we see it written that He will have Mercy on who He will have mercy. That is why the choosing is His and not ours. Predestination is according to HIS plan and not the plans of man.​

Hi, "MamaZ". "Just", is a word defined by the Greek. Rom3:26 says "God is just and justifier of HE WHO BELIEVES."

In Rom5:17-18 alone, we see that justification CAME to all men, in exactly the same way as came condemnation. And we see that those who receive the abundance of grace and who receive the gift of righteousness shall reign with Christ. Clearly, "justification", is received by faith.

Justification is inseparable from sanctification, and from washing/regeneration. One cannot occur without the others. And all succeed faith.

In 2Pet1:9, is a man who WAS PURE, but has FORGOTTEN that purification --- he was justified/sanctified/washed/regenerated. He is the warning to us, therefore we are to be diligent about our calling and election that we ENTER Heaven.

In Heb10:29, is a man who WAS sanctified and through Jesus' blood. He was justified/sanctified/washed/regenerated, but now tramples Jesus, scorns the very blood that once sanctified him, and insults the Spirit. He is the warning to us, not to "continue sinning willfully, that Jesus' sacrifice no longer covers us. Clearly stated in Heb10:26.

In "He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy", the context clearly conveys "not only DESCENDANTS of Abraham are heirs, but children of the PROMISE are REGARDED as heirs; if God wants to have mercy on Gentiles too, DEAL with it."

In no way does it contradict Rom11:32, "God has mercy on ALL."

Did I write that in such a way as to make sense?

 

[nobdysfool]

Quoted by heymikey80:
Ben, the reason it's quoted as if it's not been refuted is quite clearly because it's not been refuted. After over a hundred postings on the subject, you haven't convinced those who do cite the passage in 1 Cor 2 that you've refuted any aspect of their assertion.​

That's because the questions have not been answered. Let's go back to "square one".

Calvinists perceive that 1Cor2:14 asserts "natural men (unregenerated) cannot believe-savingly in Jesus, because such belief is one of the THINGS that they cannot understand." Here are the choices --- you must pick one, even if by default you pick the LAST one:

1. The THINGS in verse 14, are the same THINGS as in verse 12; these things are revealed by the RECEIVED Spirit --- "received", means "BELIEF in JESUS".

2. The "THINGS" in verse 14, are not the same "things" as in verse 12 (explain this).

3. "RECEIVED", does not denote "belief" (explain in light of Eph1:13, and Acts11:17).

4. Do not respond, pretend the "Calvinistic perception" has not been refuted, and everyone will perceive stubborn refusal of clear doctrine

I mean no disrespect, Mike, but one of these MUST be chosen; and that's just the facts, not "something Ben is imposing".

Quote:
1 Cor 12 deals with wisdom from God, and it's clear that those with the Spirit have the wisdom of God. It's also clear that those who are unspiritual do not have this wisdom. You state that there are no carnal Christians -- and Paul states that there are no spiritual people who are not "us", just Greeks and Jews and rulers looking for wisdom and signs they can't find and can't see or receive.​

I've been accused of jumping around indiscriminately. Please stay with the verse (unless you cite other verses with valid connections) --- are the THINGS in verse 14, different from the THINGS in verse 12? Can the Spirit be RECEIVED apart from belief in Jesus?

Quote:
The passage does not sit down and address the question of whether spiritual wisdom is the dividing line between belief and unbelief. Why you're jumping to trying to prove what it doesn't say, well, no matter, but it does argue against your view. If you have to prove Paul assumes something he doesn't say in this passage, and that is clearly a long-winded conclusion on its own, then your refutation is already lost.​

Black and white, Mike --- are the THINGS different, or can the Spirit be received APART from belief in Jesus?

Quote:
But the passage does address the question of whether someone who accepts spiritual wisdom is actually spiritual. If only Christians are spiritual people, of only believers are spiritual, Paul has already said the carnal person doesn't accept this wisdom. So -- end of story. Non-Christians can't accept this wisdom, because they're carnal.​

Whoever receives the Spirit, is spiritual.

Natural men do not accept the things of the Spirit of God, because they have not believed savingly in Jesus and received the Spirit. Find any fault in that statement.

Quote:
You're not getting anywhere with this refutation because it's built on a vast array of assumptions you haven't established as true. Not least is your order of salvation. You've demonstrated that by assertions you're pressing into John 6 and John 1 (which again, are not established and acutely controverted, so can't be used to refute a position on 1 Cor 2).​

Oh I'm getting somewhere; one of those four questions will be answered by Calvinists, or #4 will be selected by default, and everyone will know the refutation stands.

This is no "imposition of rules", it's simple fact; answer the questions, or concede the point.

Don't-answer, and concede the point.

Quote:
If you flew all thousand pieces of your theology in formation, they might deny some position you wish to deny -- within your theology. But that hasn't really refuted anything either. That would say that your particular theology would not accept such a position. It would say nothing about other theologies.

Those who disagree with you don't think the thousand pieces of your theology will actually fly in the first place.​

If such disagreement is founded on Scripture, what is the Scripture?

Quote:
And making the assertion that your position is drawn from Scripture and thus must be Scripture's only real meaning, that doesn't help your cause, either. It essentially means you're not answering other proposals for what Scripture means. You're simply jumping from one idiosyncratic view of a prooftext to another. When we point out one idiosyncratic view doesn't fly in context, you jump to another verse -- which in our view doesn't fly in context, either. And so, since you don't concentrate on a specific verse in its context, the argument falls apart. No one Scripture is being considered for what it means and what it can't mean and what it permits. If the pieces don't perform as advertised, then the assembly of those pieces is unlikely to fly.​

Four understandings, Mike. Pick one, or pick #4 by not-choosing.

Ben, Frumanchu has totally and completely refuted your position, beyond any doubt. You claim that no Calvinist has answered you, and that is blatantly false. Fru has answered you, and destroyed your position. Your refusal to answer him does not negate that clear fact.

The poll you started on this thread has also shown that you have not, and cannot make your case. So, you will have to live with the fact that you have been wrong, you have been proven wrong, and that you have no credible warrant to insist that this passage not be a part of the debate. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

You lost, Ben. Your position is not scriptural, credible, or correct. It has been refuted, utterly and completely. QED

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by NBF:
It can been and has been, yet you refuse to acknowledge or answer it. I submit that you CANNOT answer to the defense I've laid forth, but instead simply repeat your claims over and over again while the poll you hoped would vindicate you has turned out to be another defeat.
​

This is an attempt to support #2. Let's look at the verses:

"A natural man does not accept the THINGS of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised (examined/judged).

We have received, ...the Spirit of God that we may know the THINGS freely given to us by God."

#2 asserts "know the THINGS of the Spirit of God", are not the same "THINGS-freely-given/revealed-by-God".

"We-may-know", equates to "given-to-us", and is given by the RECEIVED Spirit; there is zero basis to assert that THINGS said in verse 12, and THINGS said in the same breath verse 14, are not the same THINGS.

Calvinism asserts that "things" (vs14) include SAVING-FAITH, which is given to us (by monergistic regeneration) BEFORE belief. This requires the "things" between the two verses, said in the same breath, to be DIFFERENT THINGS (vs12 things does not include saving-faith, vs14 things does) --- or the Spirit is received BEFORE BELIEF.

Neither position is valid.

They are the same "THINGS". They cannot be "different" simply because Calvinism says so.

Quote:
The poll you started on this thread has also shown that you have not, and cannot make your case. So, you will have to live with the fact that you have been wrong, you have been proven wrong, and that you have no credible warrant to insist that this passage not be a part of the debate. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
​

Which is more credible --- "Things" are not "things"? Or "Things" are "things"? The poll simply reflects #4, which includes "stubborn refusal of clear doctrine".

With respect, the only defense is to just state "YOU'RE REFUTED", without providing any refutation.

Quote:
You lost, Ben. Your position is not scriptural, credible, or correct. It has been refuted, utterly and completely.
​

Nice general assertion, without any backing, without Scripture, without answering the four understandings.

THEREFORE you have chosen #4:
4. Do not respond, pretend the "Calvinistic perception" has not been refuted, and everyone will perceive stubborn refusal of clear doctrine

If you can provide support for #2, then you will provide it; if you cannot, then you will not.

Understand I mean nothing hostile to you, my Christian brother. In these debates it's long seemed frustrating to me to read something clear in Scripture, and then have people just reply "No it's not". Why? What's the basis?

When we receive the Spirit (through faith in Christ), then He reveals the spiritual things that natural men cannot understand (because they have not believed). This aligns with John10, where the Jews did not believe Jesus' Messiahship, because they had not believed Him. And context (including Jn8:42) states "if God were your Father (if you loved/believed/belonged-to God), then you would believe Me." It aligns with John5:39-47 (If you believed Moses, THEN you would believe Me; how can you believe Me WHEN you WILL not believe Moses? You will not, because you seek men's glory and do not seek God's.)

100% "because you don't want to", zero "because God chose".

 

[heymikey80]

Quoted by heymikey80:
Ben, the reason it's quoted as if it's not been refuted is quite clearly because it's not been refuted. After over a hundred postings on the subject, you haven't convinced those who do cite the passage in 1 Cor 2 that you've refuted any aspect of their assertion.​

That's because the questions have not been answered. Let's go back to "square one".

Calvinists perceive that 1Cor2:14 asserts "natural men (unregenerated) cannot believe-savingly in Jesus, because such belief is one of the THINGS that they cannot understand." Here are the choices --- you must pick one, even if by default you pick the LAST one:

1. The THINGS in verse 14, are the same THINGS as in verse 12; these things are revealed by the RECEIVED Spirit --- "received", means "BELIEF in JESUS".

2. The "THINGS" in verse 14, are not the same "things" as in verse 12 (explain this).

3. "RECEIVED", does not denote "belief" (explain in light of Eph1:13, and Acts11:17).

4. Do not respond, pretend the "Calvinistic perception" has not been refuted, and everyone will perceive stubborn refusal of clear doctrine

I mean no disrespect, Mike, but one of these MUST be chosen; and that's just the facts, not "something Ben is imposing".

As I pointed out before, you assume that the way Christians receive wisdom is the only way this knowledge is made available. It's clearly not.

According to :8, the rulers didn't understand. The wisdom was available, but not appreciated as true. So they killed Jesus. This is actually one of the examples those people you're criticizing, would actually generalize.

According to :12, the carnal person didn't understand. Here, Paul is generalizing. The wisdom was available, but considered the exact opposite of wisdom. Here it's folly to the carnal man. How exactly may some knowledge be considered folly by a man, if it is not even provided to him? It wouldn't be considered at all.

And so a person is regenerated, sees the wisdom of God as wisdom, relies on Christ, receives the Spirit of God, and thus is led into all spiritual wisdom.

And the carnal person sees the wisdom of God, but considers it foolishness, and lies to himself about the wisdom of God. Some reject and crucify Christ Who saves, in this way. So even the path of salvation is blocked by lack of spiritual wisdom.

Paul talks about Christians in Corinth as carnal (1 Cor 3:3). Paul also says they're "sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours" (1 Cor 1:2). Which do you think he means in 1 Cor 2? Are they Christians or not? Are the Corinthians themselves Christians or not?

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
The bottom line is this: You do not get to decide what can or cannot be cited scripturally, as you've tried to do here. You have no authority to do so, and any further attempt on your part will be reported up the chain as you trying to abuse your standing as a mod. How do you like them apples?​

I would like it more, if you would use theology to answer the thread, rather than "threats of judicial action".

I never claimed authority to "limit Scriptural discussion" --- the discussion itself presents the limit.

QUote:
I am tired of this junk. There are many other things more worthy of discussion. While you were gone, we were actually able to get into some of those matters, without the constant roar of static from your repetitive, rambling and senseless posts. ​

THEREFORE you have chosen #4:
4. Do not respond, pretend the "Calvinistic perception" has not been refuted, and everyone will perceive stubborn refusal of clear doctrine

Again, I mean no offense, NBF. You are not answering the understandings, because you cannot.

 

[nobdysfool]

The bottom line is this: You do not get to decide what can or cannot be cited scripturally, as you've tried to do here. You have no authority to do so, and any further attempt on your part will be reported up the chain as you trying to abuse your standing as a mod. How do you like them apples?

I would like it more, if you would use theology to answer the thread, rather than "threats of judicial action".

I never claimed authority to "limit Scriptural discussion" --- the discussion itself presents the limit.

But you are the one pushing it, trying to "establish" a ground rule wherein no Calvinist can cite this passage. You are trying to assume the authority to limit the discussion, based on your own faulty understanding of scripture. Just look at the Title and opening post of the thread, and tell me you aren't trying to limit the debate, based on your own views.

Deny that, and you are lying. Sorry to be so blunt, but this has to stop.

I am tired of this junk. There are many other things more worthy of discussion. While you were gone, we were actually able to get into some of those matters, without the constant roar of static from your repetitive, rambling and senseless posts.

THEREFORE you have chosen #4:
4. Do not respond, pretend the "Calvinistic perception" has not been refuted, and everyone will perceive stubborn refusal of clear doctrine

Again, I mean no offense, NBF. You are not answering the understandings, because you cannot.

No, I have NOT "chosen # 4". I don't recognize your paradigm, nor do I accept it as the framework of the discussion. The Truth of the matter is, your theology has been answered, and found to be in error, I have no need to repeat what Frumanchu has already shown, and dealt with. It is there, it is public, and you cannot change that. Your theology has been found to be in error. I CAN and HAVE answered you, and do not need to do so again. That does not mean that I cannot, only that I will not repeat myself, yet again.

Personally, I believe you are ignoring your responsibilities. I don't see any other mods posting much. Compared to others, you're a regular motormouth. I thought Mods had other, more pressing responsibilities. Respectfully, Ben, something isn't right about your actions.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by heymikey80:
As I pointed out before, you assume that the way Christians receive wisdom is the only way this knowledge is made available. It's clearly not.​

No, Mike --- this verse says that the THINGS which natural men do not understand, are revealed by the RECEIVED Spirit. Therefore those THINGS cannot include "saving-faith in Jesus"; because the Spirit is received BY belief in Jesus, and THEN those things are revealed.

The thread exposes the fact that 1Cor2:14 does not assert "regeneration is necessary so that men CAN believe in Jesus". Established, proven, irrefutable.

Quote:
According to :8, the rulers didn't understand. The wisdom was available, but not appreciated as true. So they killed Jesus. This is actually one of the examples those people you're criticizing, would actually generalize.​

Why didn't they understand? It's perfectly valid to perceive they didn't understand Jesus' MESSIAHSHIP, because they didn't really believe/love God. John8:42 applies, John5:39-47 applies, John10:26-28 applies.

Quote:
According to :12, the carnal person didn't understand. Here, Paul is generalizing. The wisdom was available, but considered the exact opposite of wisdom. Here it's folly to the carnal man. How exactly may some knowledge be considered folly by a man, if it is not even provided to him? It wouldn't be considered at all.​

Look again at Jesus' rebuke in Jn5:39-47 --- IF they had believed in Moses, THEN they would have believed Jesus.

Believing Moses is presented as a conscious choice, Mike. It's perfectly mirroring John8:42 --- IF God was their Father (if they believed/loved the Father), THEN they would love Jesus.

Zero "God-decided", all "they decided".

Quote:
And so a person is regenerated, sees the wisdom of God as wisdom, relies on Christ, receives the Spirit of God, and thus is led into all spiritual wisdom.​

That is the Calvinist foundation. Now --- find it in Scripture. It's not there...

Quote:
And the carnal person sees the wisdom of God, but considers it foolishness, and lies to himself about the wisdom of God. Some reject and crucify Christ Who saves, in this way. So even the path of salvation is blocked by lack of spiritual wisdom.​

Rather than "bounding" to other verses, let's confine the discussion to 1Cor2:12-14.
Are the THINGS in 14, different than the THINGS in 12? (No.)
Are those things, revealed by the RECEIVED Spirit? (Yes.)
Is the Holy Spirit received any way BUT through saving-faith in Christ? No.

Deny any one of these points, Mike. You can't; you can overlook them, but you cannot deny what they say.

Quote:
Paul talks about Christians in Corinth as carnal (1 Cor 3:3). Paul also says they're "sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours" (1 Cor 1:2). Which do you think he means in 1 Cor 2? Are they Christians or not? Are the Corinthians themselves Christians or not?​

Let's confine the discussion to 1Cor1:12-14.
Are "things" different than "things"?
Are those "things" revealed by the RECEIVED Spirit?
Does "received", denote "saving-faith"?

1Cor2:14 can never again be used in support of Calvinism, Mike. Not unless you can deny what those two verses say.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by NBF:
But you are the one pushing it, trying to "establish" a ground rule wherein no Calvinist can cite this passage. You are trying to assume the authority to limit the discussion, based on your own faulty understanding of scripture. Just look at the Title and opening post of the thread, and tell me you aren't trying to limit the debate, based on your own views.​

The discussion is "limited" by the passage itself. Against the contention that "verse 14 asserts men cannot believe savingly in Jesus without sovereign monergistic regeneration", the THINGS in 14, are revealed by the RECEIVED Spirit.

Thus, "believe-receive", precedes "reveal-things". THAT is the refutation which cannot be denied.

Quote:
Deny that, and you are lying. Sorry to be so blunt, but this has to stop.​

No one is forced to post here, by saying "this has to stop", you are demanding that the discussion be limited, while accusing me of limiting the discussion.

Quote:
No, I have NOT "chosen # 4". I don't recognize your paradigm, nor do I accept it as the framework of the discussion.​

It's not "Ben's paradigm"; it's what Paul wrote.

Quote:
The Truth of the matter is, your theology has been answered, and found to be in error, I have no need to repeat what Frumanchu has already shown, and dealt with. It is there, it is public, and you cannot change that. Your theology has been found to be in error. I CAN and HAVE answered you, and do not need to do so again. That does not mean that I cannot, only that I will not repeat myself, yet again.​

There are newcomers reading this; if you do not answer, they will perceive that you have chosen #4.

Quote:
Personally, I believe you are ignoring your responsibilities. I don't see any other mods posting much. Compared to others, you're a regular motormouth. I thought Mods had other, more pressing responsibilities. Respectfully, Ben, something isn't right about your actions.​

And respectfully too, please answer with theology, rather than attempting to cease the discussion otherwise.

 

[nobdysfool]

The bottom line is this: You do not get to decide what can or cannot be cited scripturally, as you've tried to do here. You have no authority to do so. I am calling on you to stop this blatant attempt to define the scriptures that can and cannot be used in the Calvinism-Responsible Grace debate. Calvinists have more than adequately shown that this passage is indeed a part of the debate. Your disagreement is duly noted, but that is as far as it can go.

 

[nobdysfool]

Quoted by NBF:
But you are the one pushing it, trying to "establish" a ground rule wherein no Calvinist can cite this passage. You are trying to assume the authority to limit the discussion, based on your own faulty understanding of scripture. Just look at the Title and opening post of the thread, and tell me you aren't trying to limit the debate, based on your own views.​

The discussion is "limited" by the passage itself. Against the contention that "verse 14 asserts men cannot believe savingly in Jesus without sovereign monergistic regeneration", the THINGS in 14, are revealed by the RECEIVED Spirit.

Thus, "believe-receive", precedes "reveal-things". THAT is the refutation which cannot be denied.

You are forcing more into this passage than what is there. You cannot isolate it from the context, which extends back into chapter one.

Quote:
Deny that, and you are lying. Sorry to be so blunt, but this has to stop.​

No one is forced to post here, by saying "this has to stop", you are demanding that the discussion be limited, while accusing me of limiting the discussion.

Let me get this straight. YOU are the one insisting that this passage not be used by Calvinists in support of their view, while I am saying that it IS a part of the discussion; you are trying to shout down any mention of it, and yet you say that I'M the one limiting discussion???

I'm not the one imposing limits here, Ben, it is YOU who is trying to limit the discussion by, in effect, hobbling the Calvinists in what scriptures they can and cannot cite in support of their view. YOU are the one wanting to censor the discussion, to your benefit. Seems a little self-serving to me, and I imagine to many others.

What has to stop, Ben, is your continuation to post things as though they had not been refuted, when they have been. You post as though nothing has been said against what you post, when much has been, and you claim that "no Calvinist has answered" when they clearly have answered. THAT is what must stop, because it is a blatant denial of what has actually gone on here. Respectfully, I don't think you really read closely enough what others say. You're making so much noise, you aren't hearing what is being said in reply.

Quote:
No, I have NOT "chosen # 4". I don't recognize your paradigm, nor do I accept it as the framework of the discussion.​

It's not "Ben's paradigm"; it's what Paul wrote.

Paul did not write #'s 1 through 4, Ben, YOU did. I don't recognize your paradigm, because it is wrong, and is not a proper framework for the discussion.

Quote:
The Truth of the matter is, your theology has been answered, and found to be in error, I have no need to repeat what Frumanchu has already shown, and dealt with. It is there, it is public, and you cannot change that. Your theology has been found to be in error. I CAN and HAVE answered you, and do not need to do so again. That does not mean that I cannot, only that I will not repeat myself, yet again.​

There are newcomers reading this; if you do not answer, they will perceive that you have chosen #4.

Only because you will repetitively assert that I chose # 4, in spite of my clear, unambiguous statement that I did NOT, do NOT, and will NOT choose ANY of your 4 points. And you needn't deny that you will, because we both know that you will do precisely and exactly that.

And, I will point back to this post where I clearly and emphatically deny such a choice, and hold you responsible for your tactics, showing them for what they are. Save yourself the aggravation by correcting yourself, and dropping this silly attempt at censorship of scripture.

Once again, you are trying to limit and frame the debate in such a way that you have a clear edge and advantage, which is questionable tactics, to say the least, and downright dishonest in most peoples' eyes.

Quote:
Personally, I believe you are ignoring your responsibilities. I don't see any other mods posting much. Compared to others, you're a regular motormouth. I thought Mods had other, more pressing responsibilities. Respectfully, Ben, something isn't right about your actions.​

And respectfully too, please answer with theology, rather than attempting to cease the discussion otherwise.

Funny, you try to limit the discussion, and are surprised that I yell "foul", but seem to be offended that I would contemplate a similar tactic against you. Doesn't feel so good when you're on the receiving end, does it?

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by NBF:
You are forcing more into this passage than what is there. You cannot isolate it from the context, which extends back into chapter one.​

There's nothing in the context before or after the passage which changes the meaning.

Quote:
Let me get this straight. YOU are the one insisting that this passage not be used by Calvinists in support of their view, while I am saying that it IS a part of the discussion; you are trying to shout down any mention of it, and yet you say that I'M the one limiting discussion???​

It's not ME that's establishing the barrier --- it's the passage itself. Here is how:

1. Calvinists claim that verse 14 embraces "men must be regenerated BEFORE they CAN believe in Jesus
2. But the "things" in 14 (which Calvinists take to include "saving-faith" are the SAME "things" as in 12
3. Those THINGS (in both verses) are revealed by the RECEIVED Spirit
4. The Spirit is received by BELIEF

Thus, the reason this verse can no longer be used to support Calvinism, is because "receive-BELIEVE", precedes "understand-THINGS".

The THINGS of verse 14, are revealed by the RECEIVED-BY-BELIEF Spirit. This ruins the premise that "reveal-things" must precede belief. Clearly, belief precedes reveal-things. The only way this can be denied, is either to contend that "THINGS" (14) are not "THINGS" (12), and/or to contend that "RECEIVED" (Spirit) does not denote BELIEF. Neither contention has merit or credibility.

"We have RECEIVED (by believing Jesus!) the Spirit, that we may know the THINGS freely given by God, things which the natural man cannot understand (because he has not believed Jesus)."

Quote:
I'm not the one imposing limits here, Ben, it is YOU who is trying to limit the discussion by, in effect, hobbling the Calvinists in what scriptures they can and cannot cite in support of their view. YOU are the one wanting to censor the discussion, to your benefit. Seems a little self-serving to me, and I imagine to many others.​

The limits are imposed by the passage, unless you can support "received is not believed", and/or "things are not things".

Quote:
What has to stop, Ben, is your continuation to post things as though they had not been refuted, when they have been. You post as though nothing has been said against what you post, when much has been, and you claim that "no Calvinist has answered" when they clearly have answered. THAT is what must stop, because it is a blatant denial of what has actually gone on here. Respectfully, I don't think you really read closely enough what others say. You're making so much noise, you aren't hearing what is being said in reply.​

There is nothing being established/promoted/set-forth from what I say; it is everything what Scripture says.

1. We receive the Spirit, by belief in Jesus
2. The received Spirit reveals the THINGS in verse 12, and in verse 14
3. Therefore, "belief" is NOT one of the things that only the received-belief-spiritual-men can understand


Show me the flaw in these three points.

Quote:

Paul did not write #'s 1 through 4, Ben, YOU did. I don't recognize your paradigm, because it is wrong, and is not a proper framework for the discussion.​

It's one thing to say "I don't recognize, it is wrong", but with respect it is another thing to state why.

The only "why", would answer how "things are not things", and/or how "received is not by belief". I don't think anyone can change "We have received ...that we may KNOW", into "we must know and THEN we can receive".

Quote:
The Truth of the matter is, your theology has been answered, and found to be in error, I have no need to repeat what Frumanchu has already shown, and dealt with. It is there, it is public, and you cannot change that. Your theology has been found to be in error. I CAN and HAVE answered you, and do not need to do so again. That does not mean that I cannot, only that I will not repeat myself, yet again.​

With respect, if there is an answer, then why not repeat it, instead of saying "I've already answered before and not gonna do it again"?

 

[frumanchu]

But I will answer your question here and now, about what Fru said:

It can been and has been, yet you refuse to acknowledge or answer it. I submit that you CANNOT answer to the defense I've laid forth, but instead simply repeat your claims over and over again while the poll you hoped would vindicate you has turned out to be another defeat.
​

This is an attempt to support #2.

If you're going to refer to my attempt to "support #2," then why don't you actually QUOTE [post=48351625]my support of that position[/post] rather than quoting my reference to it?

Let's look at the verses:

"A natural man does not accept the THINGS of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised (examined/judged).

We have received, ...the Spirit of God that we may know the THINGS freely given to us by God."

#2 asserts "know the THINGS of the Spirit of God", are not the same "THINGS-freely-given/revealed-by-God".

WRONG. The position is that the "things of the Spirit of God" include but are not limited to the "things freely given by God."

Paul is speaking of the things that the Spirit has revealed to him and the other teachers, which they are in turn imparting to believers. He then makes a statement that the things of the Spirit are foolishness to natural men, echoing exactly what he said in the previous chapter.

"We-may-know", equates to "given-to-us", and is given by the RECEIVED Spirit; there is zero basis to assert that THINGS said in verse 12, and THINGS said in the same breath verse 14, are not the same THINGS.

Of course there is a basis, particularly when you're talking about a noun as general and generic as "things." Were verse 14 to say "does not accept those things of the Spirit of God" you would have a case. But it doesn't say that.

Calvinism asserts that "things" (vs14) include SAVING-FAITH, which is given to us (by monergistic regeneration) BEFORE belief. This requires the "things" between the two verses, said in the same breath, to be DIFFERENT THINGS (vs12 things does not include saving-faith, vs14 things does) --- or the Spirit is received BEFORE BELIEF.

As I said previously...

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.

Which is more credible --- "Things" are not "things"? Or "Things" are "things"? The poll simply reflects #4, which includes "stubborn refusal of clear doctrine".

That is a blatantly inaccurate statement of the argument. Calvinists are not saying "things are not things." We are saying the "things" in verse 14 include but are not limited to the "things" in verse 12 and prior.

Moreover, you are the one claiming that there is no connection at all between 1 Cor 1:18 and 1 Cor 2:14 when there clearly IS. Or do you believe "natural men" are not perishing?

With respect, the only defense is to just state "YOU'RE REFUTED", without providing any refutation.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Nice general assertion, without any backing, without Scripture, without answering the four understandings.

THEREFORE you have chosen #4:
4. Do not respond, pretend the "Calvinistic perception" has not been refuted, and everyone will perceive stubborn refusal of clear doctrine

If you can provide support for #2, then you will provide it; if you cannot, then you will not.

It has been provided. You have ignored it. You cannot even bring yourself to quote it when attempting to refute it. It is there for all to see. "Number 2" has not only been chosen, it has been proven.

Understand I mean nothing hostile to you, my Christian brother. In these debates it's long seemed frustrating to me to read something clear in Scripture, and then have people just reply "No it's not". Why? What's the basis?

It's equally frustrating to answer your question and have it not only be completely ignored but to hear claims that an explanation was never given. Surely you can understand such frustration??

 

[frumanchu]

With respect, if there is an answer, then why not repeat it, instead of saying "I've already answered before and not gonna do it again"?

WE HAVE. You are ignoring it.