1 Corinthians 2:14

[Guest]

More on Ephesians 2:8 typed up from someone else;

Eph 2:8 For by grace (XARIS) are ye saved through faith (PISTIS); and that (TOUTO) not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

TOUTO ("that") cannot refer to either PISTIS ("faith") nor can it refer to XARIS ("grace"). It is neuter while those nouns are feminine, and a pronoun must agree with its antecedent in gender. But we have no antecedent which agrees with it, neither prior nor following it. This is a demonstrative pronoun with adverbial force used in an explanatory phrase.

We can see a parallel between "not of yourselves" in vs. 8 and "not of works" in v 9 that leads us to ask, "What is Paul saying in not of yourselves and not of works?" I think he clearly is referring to "salvation," though that noun is not used. What Paul is saying is that "salvation is the gift of God."

Why did Paul use a neuter demonstrative pronoun here? Well, when referring to a main idea in a general way, it's quite common to use a neuter pronoun. IOW, if Paul had wanted to say,

"For by grace you are saved through faith, and this salvation we're talking about is not a result of works, it's a gift, so no one can boast about it."

The neuter pronoun would have been used.

Faith is best understood here as the response of people to the working of the Holy Spirit. When someone acknowledges that he is a sinner and in need of a Savior, how could that ever be understood as work? To recognize that we cannot save ourselves, and need Christ to save us is just the opposite of work... it is to give up striving to save ourselves, and represents the epitomy of non-work.

Faith is not like water which can be poured or clay which can be handled. So to say that God works to bring about faith in someone does not mean that the individual opened up a package and took out some faith. We cannot say, "I think I'll believe in Jesus Christ. Oh, I don't really in my mind accept it as a fact that He is supposed to have died for me, but I choose to believe in it anyway." Such would be ludricuous. God sent His Holy Spirit to convict men of sin and to enlighten darkened and depraved minds to the truth (John 16:8-11). God is at work in our lives and minds to cause us to consider truth. He illuminates truth. As we seek more truth, more light is given to us, and we eventually genuinely believe the gospel.

If faith is a gift and not a response, then people no longer bear any responsibility to believe the Gospel. Yet the Bible is filled with such appeals. But it can also be said that we will not believe the gospel unless God works to bring it about in our lives. To say otherwise is to ignore the condition of our hearts and minds as described in Romans 3.

[_SoaringEagle]

Actually, what I was trying to show was that both the natural man AND those whom Paul said were carnal, could not receive the things of the Spirit of God. The natural man are indeed those without the Spirit, who are unbelievers. Those who were carnal were indeed saved, for Paul said they had received the Spirit who is from God. Yet neither of these two could receive the following:
1) wisdom spoken among those mature (mature believers that is)
2) the hidden wisdom of God
3) the things that God has prepared for those who love Him
4) the things that have been freely given to us by God

The above are things for a believer to know that is beyond or deeper the message of salvation. Therefore, as Sean has said, context shows two things:
1) the calvinistic interpretation of this cannot be correct, for it would say that the unsaved can't receive the gospel
2)an unbeliever can recieve and understand the gospel message of salvation.

SoaringEagle

[Guest]

why are we lumping the natural man and carnal man under the same heading as not being able to recieve wisdom from God. Those that dont have the spirit cannot recieve the hidden wisdom from God not matter how smart they are. the carnal could recieve the things of God but because of their immaturiety are not ready for it. the natural man could never be ready as long as he doesnt have the spirit. "Those without the Spirit may very well be unbelievers" They have to be unbelievers. He that hath the spirit has the life, he that doesnt have the spirit doesnt have the life.
You say that the calvinistic interprtation of this cannot be correct, for it would say that the unsaved cant receive the gospel. The Bible doesnt have to say anything that you think it should have said. The gospel isnt even addressed. It also doesnt say anything about an uneliever being able to recieve and understand the gospel. theres alot of assumptions going on here. I am still not clear about this thing about those that dont have the spirit as just those that are believers that dont think spiritually. it seems thats a stretch but then again iv never heard that before so i need to look at it more. everything in a context doesnt have to connect. the context is important but all the particulars do not have to be lumped together as being an integral part of each other. thanks , jeff

[Guest]

JJB,

Thanks for your quote from Matthew Henry. Seems to me that he believed in man's free will. I thought he was a Calvinist.

[_SoaringEagle]

why are we lumping the natural man and carnal man under the same heading as not being able to recieve wisdom from God?

Because that's what the Scriptures declare.

1 Cor. 2:14But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1 Cor. 3:1-3 says And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; 3 for you are still carnal

Those that dont have the spirit cannot recieve the hidden wisdom from God not matter how smart they are.

True, but the hidden wisdom from God is above, beyond, and much deeper than the gospel message! Please notice that those with the Spirit, but who aren't yet spiritual/mature in Christ couldn't/cant recieve the deep things of God/hidden widsom of God either!

the natural man could never be ready as long as he doesnt have the spirit.

Yep. True indeed. The natural man can't recieve the hidden/deep things of God. However, that is not talking about the gospel message of salvation.

"Those without the Spirit may very well be unbelievers" They have to be unbelievers.

Your right, and I edited my above post.

You say that the calvinistic interprtation of this cannot be correct, for it would say that the unsaved cant receive the gospel. The Bible doesnt have to say anything that you think it should have said. The gospel isnt even addressed. It also doesnt say anything about an uneliever being able to recieve and understand the gospel. theres alot of assumptions going on here.

Yes, the Calvinist reading is off. The gospel isn't even addressed like you said, so my point is we shouldn't include the gopsel message of salvation as one of the things that the natural man can't receive. Yes, it also doesn't say anything about an unbelever being able to receive and understand the gospel. BUT, nowhere in the bible does it say that an unbeliever can't receive the gospel either. Show we shouldn't Calvinists shouldn't say they can't. To do so, would be assuming as well.

The context is important, for it is a means of discovering what the author of those passages was intending to say. We cannot say the context is saying one thing that means something today that is totally different from what it meant back then. That is all.

[Guest]

why are we lumping the natural man and carnal man under the same heading as not being able to recieve wisdom from God. Those that dont have the spirit cannot recieve the hidden wisdom from God not matter how smart they are. the carnal could recieve the things of God but because of their immaturiety are not ready for it. the natural man could never be ready as long as he doesnt have the spirit. "Those without the Spirit may very well be unbelievers" They have to be unbelievers. He that hath the spirit has the life, he that doesnt have the spirit doesnt have the life.
You say that the calvinistic interprtation of this cannot be correct, for it would say that the unsaved cant receive the gospel. The Bible doesnt have to say anything that you think it should have said. The gospel isnt even addressed. It also doesnt say anything about an uneliever being able to recieve and understand the gospel. theres alot of assumptions going on here. I am still not clear about this thing about those that dont have the spirit as just those that are believers that dont think spiritually. it seems thats a stretch but then again iv never heard that before so i need to look at it more. everything in a context doesnt have to connect. the context is important but all the particulars do not have to be lumped together as being an integral part of each other. thanks , jeff

Well now I'm confused. What exactly is your question?

[Guest]

Well the Scriptures can successfully be argued to support both views,so I guess if you like spinning your wheels in trying to solve a debate which has raged throughout the centuries then go for it. But its really nothing more than both are true,yet we cant reconcile them in our minds. Although God has no probelm in understanding how the two truths are reconciled.Its really pride which drives these debates..and a desire to get God to fit into our understanding...but it sure makes for interesting reading.

[Guest]

Well the Scriptures can successfully be argued to support both views,so I guess if you like spinning your wheels in trying to solve a debate which has raged throughout the centuries then go for it. But its really nothing more than both are true,yet we cant reconcile them in our minds. Although God has no probelm in understanding how the two truths are reconciled.Its really pride which drives these debates..and a desire to get God to fit into our understanding...but it sure makes for interesting reading.

While it is a difficult subject to tackle, it's not an impossible one. JeffWall is getting there, I think, by understanding what is not in the text and what is. When we exegete the passages in question, we see that it's not so difficult. The Calvinist doctrine is reading into the text what isn't there. This passage in 1 Corinthians is a good example. It doesn't say what the Calvinsit want's it to say. JeffWall seems to be making the counterpoint that it doesn't say what the Arminian wants it to say. My response to that is simply that I'm not trying to build a doctrine of total depravity, so 1 Cor 2:14 doesn't negatively affect my view.

In speaking with other Calvinist, they usually have several pet peeve verses. This is one of them that they use to try and prove total depravity. Yet, it would almost seem that JeffWall is even admitting that would be reading too much into it, since even he says:

"The Bible doesnt have to say anything that you think it should have said. The gospel isnt even addressed. It also doesnt say anything about an uneliever being able to recieve and understand the gospel. theres alot of assumptions going on here."

While I don't necessarliy agree with what he is saying, he is reasoning in the the right direction. That is: Don't read into the text! If you can't find a verse that says "unsaved man can't believe on the Lord Jesus and so be saved without being regenerated first" then why believe it?

[Guest]

Well the Scriptures can successfully be argued to support both views,so I guess if you like spinning your wheels in trying to solve a debate which has raged throughout the centuries then go for it. But its really nothing more than both are true,yet we cant reconcile them in our minds. Although God has no probelm in understanding how the two truths are reconciled.Its really pride which drives these debates..and a desire to get God to fit into our understanding...but it sure makes for interesting reading.

Calvinist would agree man has freewill and God ordains everything, both being true at the same time without contradicting each other.
They say its a mystery, I would say it makes God not apply the laws of logic.

Perhaps pride can drive these debates, I think we are lucky to be able to have them given the freedom we have. But i would say, i consider this to be a serious subject, becuase the God of calvinism and the God of non calvinism are very different. I have actually met a couple people (not that this is an excuse!) that have rejected God becuase they were exposed to a calvinistic God, which I don't think is the same God revealed in scripture.

I know and love calvinists, and can have great fellowship with them, some of my favorite teachers are calvinists, (Bahnsen, Mcarthur, Boice).

Although calvinism thinking was considered heresy by the church fathers before 400AD, it seems to me that calvinism is the predominent doctrine of my own time, I am concerned becuase many christians are being spoon fed calvinism without questioning it, and I think non calvinism, the predominent view of christian history needs to swing back in our time.

If God has revealed himself a certain way, in scripture and in the person of Jesus, we need to be faithfull in reflecting him accuratly.

Jason

[Guest]

Well the Scriptures can successfully be argued to support both views,so I guess if you like spinning your wheels in trying to solve a debate which has raged throughout the centuries then go for it. But its really nothing more than both are true,yet we cant reconcile them in our minds. Although God has no probelm in understanding how the two truths are reconciled.Its really pride which drives these debates..and a desire to get God to fit into our understanding...but it sure makes for interesting reading.

Calvinist would agree man has freewill and God ordains everything, both being true at the same time without contradicting each other.
They say its a mystery, I would say it makes God not apply the laws of logic.

Perhaps pride can drive these debates, I think we are lucky to be able to have them given the freedom we have. But i would say, i consider this to be a serious subject, becuase the God of calvinism and the God of non calvinism are very different. I have actually met a couple people (not that this is an excuse!) that have rejected God becuase they were exposed to a calvinistic God, which I don't think is the same God revealed in scripture.

I know and love calvinists, and can have great fellowship with them, some of my favorite teachers are calvinists, (Bahnsen, Mcarthur, Boice).

Although calvinism thinking was considered heresy by the church fathers before 400AD, it seems to me that calvinism is the predominent doctrine of my own time, I am concerned becuase many christians are being spoon fed calvinism without questioning it, and I think non calvinism, the predominent view of christian history needs to swing back in our time.

If God has revealed himself a certain way, in scripture and in the person of Jesus, we need to be faithfull in reflecting him accuratly.

Jason

This debate is not pride motivated. Its motivated by a desire to know more about God. True it can be exhausting which it kind of is right now but i like to talk about it because it get to learn more about greek grammer which sean or jason brought out last time and i also get to fellowship with believers with a different slant on things which is basically funner and more edifying than just being in the amen corner with someone of my same slant. I really cant judge the motives of either calvanists or arminians for how or why they believe. and i would certainly not accuse or even hint that its pride or being spoon fed because i dont know. also yes the bible can teach two seemingly apposing truths yet not reconcilable in our human logic but this subject i believe there is an answer to and to conclusivily say the scriptures teach both is to just give up on the thing. the bible does teach gods sovereinty and mans responsiblility but thats another topic.