Featured 1 Corinthians 2:14 - How does God explain truth?

Revmitchell

Nope...the cals will jump on it because it is false on several levels.

 

Huh? How can you agree and disagree at the same time? Are you now a democrat?

 

If you look back at their post they said some believe this doesn't necessarily mean they are referring to themselves, and in this case they are not.:1_grouphug:

 

In Exodus we are told that "Pharoah hardened his heart" a number of times and also that "God hardened" Pharoah's heart.

The very fact that a lost person's heart CAN be hardened from their initial starting point - proves they do not start off totally hardened and dead.

We are also told that when a severe judgment is not visited quickly - the wicked grow bolder (are allowed to harden).

God hardens Pharaoh's heart by starting off slowly in the scope and severity of the plagues and then eventually ending with the death decree.

At which point Pharaoh gives up - but then reverts back to rebellion as soon as Israel leaves.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Through faith} --- faith is the instrumentality---we are linked to the finished work of the cross....it is simultaneous to regeneration;

5 Having been declared righteous, then, by faith, we have peace toward God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

2 through whom also we have the access by the faith into this grace in which we have stood, and we boast on the hope of the glory of God.

Don't worry WD...I will not tell anyone I agree with you:laugh:

 

Hardening is the consequence of the NATURAL HEART which has no ability "to percieve, and eyes to see, and ears to hear" (Deut. 5:29; 29:4). Pharoah was a natural born human in possession of a fallen heart. No amount of exposure to light (truth, the word, the gospel) will enable this kind of heart to respond appropriately. If it could respond appropriately there would be no need for a NEW heart. The only kind of response possible for the natural heart is hardening. The more light it is exposed to the more it will harden. The natural heart can RECOGNIZE light and can REACT to light in one way only - hardening as the natural man "will not" come to the light. Thus the light does not provide enablement but exposes the condition of the old heart and brings only condemnation.

 

My new thread of Deuteronomy 5:29 provides the Bibical support you declare I am without. If you can point out any of the numerically listed reasons I gave in that thread which deal with both the context and texts - please do.

However, that is not the real issue as I believe that hardening is a process over extended periods of time. You and I both agree that those being hardened are without the new heart/nature and still unregenerated and thus a response of the fallen nature. Your problem is that the scriptures clearly and explicitly and repeatedly teach that SPIRITUAL perception, ability to see spiritually and hear spiritually is not the product of the old heart/fallen nature whether it exists in the lost or saved man but that ability is the product of the new heart (Ezek. 36;27; Deut. 29:4; 1 Cor. 2:14; Rom. 8:7-8).

Hence, we must both agree that the fallen nature is the only possible source of hardening as the lost man does not possess a new heart. Hence, this hardening is simply the consequence of the fallen natures exposure to light (Jn. 3:19-20; Rom. 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14).

Therefore, we are not talking about SPIRITUAL ability but NATURAL ability or the functional process of the fallen conscience to exposure to light. The conscience can recognize light but that does not mean it has ability to respond favorably to what it recognizes. Indeed, Deut. 29:4 denies that possibility as that potential comes only with the new heart just as Ezek. 36:27declares.

Deut. 5:29 with 29:4; Ezek 36:26 with Ezek 36:27; 1 Cor. 2:14 with Romans 8:7. Romans 3:10-12; etc.

The very nature of your question presumes the very thing you are trying to prove and demanding that I prove when you say "life giving truth." Only the Spirit of God communicates spiritual life and it is obvious that is not accomplished every time the gospel is preached (2 Cor. 2:14-15) but only accomplished in regard to the elect (1 Thes. 1:4-5).

Meaning, if the described condition were not true. But it is true and it is always true as the fallen nature responds only one way.

 

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.

Skan, can you or any of those who defend your position claim the above verses are descriptive of the new regenerative nature??? I do not believe you would attempt to defend that idea.

Now, the only other state or condition possible is the unregenerated nature. Please note the explanatory verse 8 claims this is characteristics of those "in the flesh" and why they "cannot please God." Note, he did not say this is characterized of SOME or a PARTICULAR CLASS of lost men but those "in the flesh" which is used in contrast to those "in the Spirit" (Rom. 8:9).

Your position is a simple denial of what Paul says the fallen nature "IS" as a STATE or CONDITION (the double "is" are STATE OF BEING verbs).

Your position requres a THIRD kind of man who is neither "in the flesh" or "in the Spirit" which "IS" not being described in Romans 8:7-8. No such man exists.

 

:thumbs::thumbsup:

and thus, the natural man, the unregenerate, dead IN sin and trespasses (as opposed to dead TO sin), what I (and you may not necessarily agree) call the 'unelect', those whose names have never been written in God's mind and heart (his book of life, if you will) are not within the scope of human responsibility which so many in this board are demanding.

 

But you are wrong and another type of man does exist, the unregenerate, but devout or spiritual man. Cornelius was such a man;

Acts 2:1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,
2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

We know from scripture that Cornelius was not saved at this point in time, and he did not have the indwelling Spirit, yet the scriptures do not call him either a "natural" or "carnal" man, but a "devout man" who feared God, prayed always, and did many truly righteous works.

We see another example of "devout men" in Acts chapter 2;

Acts 2:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

These Jews were not saved, neither did they have the indwelling Holy Spirit, yet they were all in Jerusalem to worship God and celebrate the Passover. And we know that over 3000 of these men and women trusted Jesus Christ that day and received the Holy Spirit.

Another example is the disciples themselves in Matthew 26:41;

Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

The disciples had not received the indwelling Holy Spirit at this point, but Jesus said in their natural spirit they were indeed willing to obey him, but their flesh was weak and caused them to fall asleep.

This shows that unregenerate man is not solely flesh, but also spirit, and that in his natural spirit he can be willing to be obedient and believe in God.

Cornelius and those thousands of unregenerate Jews on the day of Pentacost also show that natural man can attend to spiritual matters if they so choose to do.

Your theory is EASILY refuted by scripture.

 

Skan has taken the term "responsibility" and defined so that it is impossible for man to ever forfeit or lose any kind of ability and be justly condemned by God for that forfeiture. However, the entire human nature with full ability acted when Adam acted and thus justly can be held accountable for their loss of spiritual ability because that ability was possessed and willfully forfeited by all mankind when all mankind existed as one human nature acting in the person of Adam.

 

This is total error with not one word of scripture to support it. Note that Biblicist did not reference even one verse of scripture to support his view here. Zilch.

 

We have discussed this many times and I have provided Romans 5 consistently as the scripture I use to support this. You may disagree with my position and interpretation of Romans 5:12-19 but I certaintly have provided and then defended with scripture my position.

 

It is not at all clear that Cornelius was unregenerate prior to getting the baptism of the Holy Spirit and then physical baptism.

(Unless you believe in baptismal regeneration which I assume you do not.)


Acts 2:1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,
2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

Sounds regenerate to me.

Not from any statement that I know of in Acts 10.

No text that I know of says Cornelius did not have the indwelling Holy Spirit. In fact I think that is the only way the lost become devout, praying servants of God.

Paul also admits that Timothy was saved prior to becoming a Christian.

And of course the saved OT saints in Heb 11 - were not NT saints - but OT pre-cross saints.

True but there is no text in all of scripture saying that Jews were not saved until Christ died on the cross.

Enoch and Elijah went to heaven before that in fact and Moses appears with Christ in Matt 17.

Indeed they had. In Matt 10 they are given Spiritual gifts and sent out as evangelists - preaching the Gospel of the kingdom.

So while I do agree with you that the lost are supposed to confess, repent and accept the gospel while lost - and then when they believe they are born again. I do not claim that these devout praying servants of God were not born-again - because they would need an actual new creation - new birth - new nature to be worshiping God and serving Him daily.

in Christ,

Bob

 

We have debated the meaning and application of the term "saved" in this text and we disagree. I have provided scriptures where the term "saved" does not refer to regeneration (e.g. 1 Tim. 2:15). Baptism in the Spirit cannot be equated with regeneration without denying regeneration occurred prior to Pentecost. Do you deny regeneration occurred prior to Pentecost? What Cornelius received was the baptism in the Spirit with accompanying signs and wonders (tongues) (Acts 10:45-46;11:15-16).

I have pointed out that God told Peter that Corneilius had already been made "clean" (Acts 10:15) and "accepted" by God (Acts 10:35) and that he was already a believer in the Old Testament gospel (Acts 10:43) but like Apollos was ignorant that Jesus was that Christ and of the newly commissioned and authorized administrator of the ordinances and public appointed means to serve God - the house of God.

There were devout believers in the OT gospel (Acts 10:43) such as Apollos who did not know that "Jesus" was the Christ who were not present when Christ was crucified but had come in from the various countries listed in Acts 2:6-11. The devout were among those who heard Peter and responded to baptism and church membership (Acts 2:40-41).