1 Cor. 2.10-16

"But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words of which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 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. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Here is quoted 1 Cor. 2.10-16

Yelsew has suggested these scripture are needed in context of vs. 14 in order to disprove the inability of natural man to discern spiritual things. I say these scripture add strength to the interpretation of vs 14 which I have given to it, simply as the scripture itself states:

...the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:

This scripture is able to stand to show the Total depravity of man; and this scripture is able to stand to show further the need for regeneration in the natural man before the man is enabled to believe.

Bro. Bill assumes the scriptures speaking as such speak only to the elect apostles and prophets or any other that has a specific task assigned to him of God; in this view bro. Bill and the Armenians on this board are able to walk in agreement; while I respect these our brethren, I cannot walk in agreement with these things because the logical end of them would align me with such false systems as that founded by Joseph Smith and others.

I am content to stand where I am; to look to the Rock from which I am hewn and to not embrace a foreign system which is alien to the Word of God. Attack my hermeneutical abilities if you will, the first application in interpreting scripture is the plain sense of it, whether any other is ever ascribed to or not, the practical scripture when taught to man through the power of the Holy Spirit shall both, bring to the birth and cause to be born.

I stand by my original statement that the carnal man cannot know the things of God. If you can disprove this from these scripture apart from twisting the Word of God into something the Spirit cannot recognize as having His signature, go on, I cannot in good conscience do that.

Yelsew, here is your context show that the scripture is speaking differently than what I have shown.

Brother Bill, show the scripture is not speaking particularly to a body of people, whose testimony of being partakers of the heavenly calling Paul accepted, and that it is speaking toward the idea that these cannot receive such spiritual things of God, except that they be walking carnally.

The difference is stark and plainly given. Natural man is unable to receive the spiritual things while the child of God is able to do so, but is limited by the degree of carnality they are living in.


These things cannot be dismissed simply by calling for greater context, in this situation my position is strengthened through context.

These things cannot be dismissed by claiming poor hermenuetics because the first principle of hermeneutics is subscribed to in my belief, that being the plain sense of scripture.

(I have not studied hermeneutics, if this is not the first approach in interpreting scripture someone inform me of my error, preferrably someone who has not already attacked my system through proposal of a poor hermeneutics)

No offense brother Bill, but I already know how you feel about my ability to interpret, and I do not despise you for it. Yet it seems to me I have remained true to the plain sense of 1 Cor. 2.14 and have shown by context the plain sense does not change to answer Yelsew's plea for context, of which context I wonder whether he has read, for had he read it, certainly he would not have been so bold as to cry for it's inclusion.

Brethren, here is my stand. Most of the topics of what I post, few answer, I do not know the reason for this. Maybe it is due to poor hermeneutics, I am but a man and only higher than the dust because of the life God has breathed into me. But maybe it is because these things presented as plainly as an ignorant, backward, hillbilly can present them are more formidable against the arguments of poor hermeneutics or contextual integrity.

If you have read this far then perhaps you are ready to reply. May God Bless you in your search to disprove and doubt His unadulterated Word with an understanding that will end your search to place man at the vanguard of the forces of that old dragon and restore in your heart, soul and mind the original command given to Israel, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.'

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

The rich young ruler called Jesus 'good master' Jesus' answer was in reply to this statement and designed to show the young man the error of his presenting to God a list of works of any kind.

Bro. Dallas

 

This misapplication you claim I have entered upon is consistent with the idea that the natural man cannot receive the things of God, this, followed to its logical end means even the salvation of God in Christ is not understandable to those who are natural, requiring regeneration to be first in the order of any who are to believe.

Please discuss the scripture more in-depth, especially if you want to show any misapplication, please provide evidence of this beyond your own opinion, I am (listening) though I am reading your responses, they echo into my mind and thus create a "hearing" which I can say along with Bro. Bill (to paraphrase) '...I will listen...' but do I have any measure of comprehension of your position? not as of yet. Further discussion is required, else the proof of man's inability is established as it is impossible for any to refute there is a distinction to be made in "hearing" and "understanding" here is the issue.

The natural man may hear the truth of the Gospel proclaimed, yet his understanding is blinded by the carnal nature, which is declared enmity against God and not a progressive enmity, for then it would cease to be enmity, but would become the 'making of enmity' this enmity is then inherited by man and must be removed by the working of God.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

What saith Scripture...again.

"Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men. For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobdient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour."

Titus 3.1-6

Further, Regeneration is: paliggenesia and is taken from palin and genesis. It is 'spiritual rebirth' (the state or act) it is figurative of spiritual renovation, and specifically Messianic restoration-regeneration.

palin--(means) anew, (prob) from balo (meaning to throw down violently). Palin means "anew" (of place); back (of time) once more; a conjunction meaning furthermore or on the other hand...again.

from genesis we have a derivative of genea meaning nativity fig. of nature--generation; nature (al) related to genos meaning 'kin.'

From this we have regeneration, as it is used in Matt. 19.28 our Lord is referring to the national regeneration of the land. If we go back to the teaching found in redemption, we find the land is also redeemed and as well from the ' kinsman 'redeemer. This for the redemption, the renewal, the regeneration of national Israel in the 'promised' land.

Here in Titus we have the individual application of the regeneration, the order is given by scripture such that it is through the Holy Spirit; it is not provided after depraved man, described according to vs. 1; believes, but is the act of the Holy Spirit which enables belief.

This is regeneration.

Still you have not dealt with 1 Cor. 2.10-16 to show why this context does not support and strengthen my position as explained from 1 Cor. 2.14.

Still, I enjoy the opportunity to provide more and more scriptural study to show the truthfulness of the Sovereign Grace of God.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

Your interpretation renders the Grace of God unable; this is consistent with your imaginative 'ability of man according to his free-will.'

Why have you diverted the discussion to Titus and other places in Scripture, is the truth of 1 Cor. 2.10-16 too overwhelming?

Brother Dallas

 

This belief is impossible apart from the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. Those who are natural at 1 Cor. 2.14 are those who are relying on a natural understanding of the spiritual things, those who are able to understand these things do so by the indwelt Spirit of God; this indwelling is not due to belief, but a product of the regeneration of the natural man. Regeneration being a renewal, to hold to a 'free-will' or decisional interpretation of what is salvation etc. requires that man regenerates himself, then from here believes on Jesus. Scripture no where supports this.

Bro. Dallas

 

My answer is incorporated in the quote of your quote [italicized]:

You are the one who posted the reference to Titus 3, I simply commented on it. Did you notice Titus 3:1 where PAUL SAYS, You see, God's grace has been revealed to save the whole human race? Does Paul contradict himself? Is Paul mistaken?

Check again, Paul does not say what you have at Titus 3.1; I know this was probably a typo, so you can repost the vs. you meant then I will deal with that.

You fail to recognize that God's grace is not the active ingredient in Salvation! Grace is the road, faith is the vehicle, salvation is the destination!

On the contrary, I recognize God's Grace is the active ingredient in Salvation, without this there would be no hope for man; Thanks for accusing me of this failure I see it as a great compliment, you said is not

You give me much more credit than I can live up to. There is no way that I can do anything to God's Grace, it is HIS! He gave me my grace, I contributed nothing to Him, He is self existant from eternity to eternity. </font>[/QUOTE]I did not give this credit, you claim it. You say above that God's Grace is not the active ingredient, nor the vehicle of salvation. The Bible does not agree with you.

Grace is the active ingredient, Christ is the vehicle, The Holy Spirit is the agent dispensing this Grace.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

The demon possessing the man at Gadarene (check spelling) proves your thesis wrong, this demon called Christ the Son of God, if this constitutes belief, then this demon shall be resurrected with the just.

Scripture teaches man cannot say Christ is Lord without the Spirit. I don't know where, but will look it up and post it.

Will you accept scripture? If man cannot say Christ is Lord without the Holy Spirit, then would you agree regeneration occurs prior to a man believing, specially in light of the fact that the devil and his demons know and recognize Jesus as the Son of God?

Bro. Dallas

 

You said that I caused God's grace to be unable. You credited me with power I do not possess.

Define Grace! Tell me specifically what grace does. Do not quote scripture to do so! Use your own words based on you own beliefs. Include all the possibilities, but only in your own words, not bible words. </font>[/QUOTE]You refuse to hear Scripture but will hear my definition. Here is the problem. Christ said:

"...if another shall come in his name, him ye will receive."

before this he had said: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise."

After the first statement above He said:
"How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?"

My definition of Grace? Simply, unmerited favor...this involves all that I can say of Grace.

God Bless.
bro.Dallas