1 Cor. 2.10-16

Agreed.

Yes. And many of those who crucified Christ are recorded as ones who later believed and received the Spirit so as to understand the things that only come from the Spirit. (Acts 2-3)

In other words, the "natual man" become a "Spiritual man" through faith and the indwelling of the Spirit. How did he receive the Spirit? Gal. 3:14 and a host of other texts teach that the Spirit comes, "through faith."

Notice once again, that this passage doesn't say that the natural man cannot receive the Spirit, it says he cannot understand the THINGS of the Spirit. This verse is not about receiving the Spirit, it is about understanding the things that only the Spirit can reveal once He has been received through faith.

I don't know how that can be any clearer???

 

V. 12 and 14 do say explicitly that the poerson without the Spirit the message of the Spirit cannot be understood. To say that one can understand the SApirit but not understand the message ofthe Spirit and thereby not accept that message is a distinction without a difference.

It really is clear, but you insist on muddyng things by appealing to other contexts rather than dealing with the passage under disucssion in its own context.

 

Those who crucified the Christ were the Church of that day, the religious leaders of the Children of Israel, and It is recorded that some, not many, of them became believers.

 

V. 12 and 14 do say explicitly that the poerson without the Spirit the message of the Spirit cannot be understood. To say that one can understand the SApirit but not understand the message ofthe Spirit and thereby not accept that message is a distinction without a difference.

It really is clear, but you insist on muddyng things by appealing to other contexts rather than dealing with the passage under disucssion in its own context. </font>[/QUOTE]What??? I'm the only one actually dealing with the context. You are are the one seeking to overlook the obvious fact that Paul is speaking to those who have already recieved the Spirit about understanding the "message" or "things" or "deep things of God." It does not talk about HOW ONE RECIEVES THE SPIRIT. It talks about man not being able to understand the THINGS of the Spirit without the indwelling of the Spirit. This is elementary stuff and you are just refusing to acknowledge it because it doesn't support your case.

If I were to say: You cannot receive a phone call unless you have a phone.

Would you interpret that to mean that no one has the ability to get a phone even if they wanted one? Of course not. That would be absurd, but that is exactly what you are doing with this text.

You are assuming that because this text teaches that a man cannot understand Spiritual things without having the Spirit that it must mean that they are unable to receive the Spirit at all, when that is not even what the verse is addressing. The Spirit comes through faith in Christ, not understanding the deep things of God. This verse is discussing BELIEVERS understanding of spiritual matters, not faith and the receiving of the Spirit.

 

You are not the only one dealing witth the context. I very clear;y made links with the context in my presnetation. That is not deniabe. Your assertion to the contrary now is pure empty rhteoric.

Your comments about Paul speaking to people who already have the Spirit is applicable only if you take 2:14 to be connected with what follows it and not what comes before it. Mine does both. Recall that I have said that the Calvanist understanding of the se verses allows us to ask: If immature, worldly Christians cannot understand the things of the Spirit with himn indwelling how can those who do not have the Spirit do so? Answer: they cannot hope to.

The fact is that how to receive the Spirit's indwelling is a matter of salvation. And that is part fo the Spirit's message to people as per the first part of 1Co. 2. You simply cannot avoid the soteriological aspect of this without ignoring the context that you claim to uphold. You make a distinction the text does not.

The superiority of the calvanist understanding is most evident in this: that while you can only deal with half the context, we can deal with the whole of it.

If the text did not include the part about geting the phone you would be right But the first part of 1Co 2 does talk about precisely that. So your anaolgy, like your interpretation, is fallacious.

I assume no such thing. I detailed the first part of 1Co 2, which says that which you deny.

Read the WHOLE context. Deal with all of it, what cpmes before as well as after. Either way the Calvanist position is shown to be correct.

 

Ok, one last time. Let's look at the context:

1 When I came to you, brothers, announcing the testimony of God to you, I did not come with brilliance of speech or wisdom. 2 For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. 4 My speech and my proclamation were not with persuasive words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and power, 5 so that your faith might not be based on men's wisdom but on God's power.

6 However, among the mature we do speak a wisdom, but not a wisdom of this age, or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 On the contrary, we speak God's hidden wisdom in a mystery, which God predestined before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age knew it, for if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But as it is written: What no eye has seen and no ear has heard, and what has never come into a man's heart, is what God has prepared for those who love Him. 10 Now God has revealed them to us by the Spirit, for the Spirit searches everything, even the deep things of God.

In verses 1-5 it is true that Paul is speaking about his first coming to them preach the gospel with the Holy Spirit speaking through him. And it actually speaks of their faith, which was not based upon mere human testimony but on the testimony of the HS within Paul, in other words, his message was inspired from above, not from human wisdom and persuasivness.

But please notice his transistion from the "elementary" truths of their faith to speaking to the "mature" about the "secret wisdom" and "deep things of God."

I know what you are going to say. "Christ and him crucified" was contained within this "secret wisdom" and the "deep things of God." Right?

Afterall the scripture goes on to say: " What no eye has seen and no ear has heard, and what has never come into a man's heart, is what God has prepared for those who love Him. "

No one has seen it or heard it! Until now. Paul, by the power of the Holy Spirit, was revealing it to them. The mystery was being revealed by the Holy Spirit through the inspired preaching of God's divinly chosen apostles.

Those who heard it could combine it with faith and receive the promised Holy Spirit (Gal. 3:14) or they could resist the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51) and continue in sinful rebellion.

If they are like Paul's audience in 1 Cor. they apparently had faith. We say "apparently" because this passage doesn't specifcally link their recieving of the Spirit to faith as other passages do, but it is alluded to in verse 5. There "faith" was based upon the power of the Holy Spirit through Paul's message of the gospel.

You see, you are assuming that Paul is speaking about the Spirit's work on the "natural man" directly and indepedantly of Paul. I see it as the Holy Spirit empowering Paul to speak truth so that the natural man can hear the truth, which can only be revealed by the Spirit, and decide for themselves if they will believe it to be true.

"You have seen me and believed, but blessed are they who don't see me and yet believe."

I guess Thomas needed more evidence. Funny, if he were effectually called to salvation in the way Calvinist teach why did Jesus have to provide the evidence?

 

Bill,

You still don't get it.

I can accept that Paul is speakign about immature Christians. TRhe principle he lays however is easily applied in a "how much less" style of argument.

If immature Christians are unable to understand the deep things of God even having the Spirit, because of their worldliness, how can non-believers hope to understand the gospel message (mentioned explicitly in the context) when they don't have the Spirit?? They can't.

What we do is apply Paul's argument, the very argument you try to support. What you cannot do successfully is deny the application.

The reason is because in the first part of chapter 2 Paul MAKES that very argument, it is the foundation for his argument in the last half of the chapter, the one you harp on.

You are stil passig ove the context of the first part of the chapter.

Sorry, no correct theology! Thanks for trying at any rate.

 

Can a person be saved without having a full understanding of the "deep things of God" and/or the "thoughts of God"?

I sure hope so because otherwise we are all in deep dodo!

Can a heathen understand the message of Christ and him crucified without actually being a Christian? Of course, what is so difficult about the gospel that anyone with any measure of intelligence couldn't understand it? The scipture even speaks of false teachers who are preaching the message of Christ. To claim that people can't even understand the basic historical facts and claims of scripture is absurd.

This passage is speaking about understanding the "thoughts of God" and the "deep things of the Spirit," something unbelievers would never have any hope of understanding and believers still apparently struggle with as we see in chapter 3. They are infants in Christ and obviously haven't gained much understanding, but does that mean they are without the Spirit? No. It means that this understanding must take time, which shows us that Paul is obviously not refering to the elementary principles of faith in Christ but to the process of understanding the deep truths revealed by the Spirit.

I don't know how this text can be any clearer.

 

I don't know how this text can be any more clear.

I don't see how this text can be any more clear.

 

You can think something is foolish but still understand it, can't you?

I understand the basic tenants of Islam but I still think it is foolish. People can understand the gospel but still consider it foolish. In fact, for them to deem it as being "foolishness" they must have some measure of understanding its claims, don't you think?


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This passage is speaking about understanding the "thoughts of God" and the "deep things of the Spirit," something unbelievers would never have any hope of understanding and believers still apparently struggle with as we see in chapter 3. They are infants in Christ and obviously haven't gained much understanding, but does that mean they are without the Spirit? No. It means that this understanding must take time, which shows us that Paul is obviously not refering to the elementary principles of faith in Christ but to the process of understanding the deep truths revealed by the Spirit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

They can't. That is my point. Those who don't have the indwelling of the Spirit can't understand the deep Spiritual things, even those with the Spirit apparently struggle grasping these truths certainly non-believers can't grasp them, which proves that they can't be talking about the elementary principles of the gospel. Even the carnal Christians of chapter 3 have understanding of the gospel, otherwise they wouldn't be Christians, so we know for a certainty that Paul is not speaking about the gospel when he refers to the "things" of the Spirit in verse 14, otherwise we must say that these "carnal Christians" didn't even understand the basics of the gospel.

 

I'm surprised nobody noticed the wording here...

"but to those who are called"? As opposed to whom? I thought the arminians assert that everyone is called equally.

 

Well...as always, let's look at the context. First, IMO, the pivotal word is "but". The word "but" tells you that there is an exception or division between one side and the other. So when it says, "but to those who are called", it must be referring to group "B" (those that are called) vs. group "A". So who comprise groups "B" and "A"? You have to look at what precedes the "but" (is that a straight line, or what?)

to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called

So, at this point, it is possible that "but to those who are called" might refero to those who are NOT Jews and Greeks. Let's keep reading...

but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks

Whoops. That eliminates the possibility that the division is between Jews and Greeks and "someone else".

So there must be some sort of division between one group of Jews and Greeks (better: Jews and Gentiles) and another group of Jews and Gentiles.

And what is the differentiating factor? Well, since both groups are "Jews and Gentiles", the only other differentiating factor in the text is, "those who are called".

So one group of Jews and Gentiles is called, the other group of Jews and Gentiles is not called. I know of no other meaning that makes sense.

Down the toilet goes the idea that election and effective calling is about apostles. Down the toilet goes the idea that this is all about the Jews being hardened, but the Gentiles, not being hardened, must be the ones who "hear" (are effectively called).

And it's all right there in scripture. (As opposed to being based on what scripture does not say.)

Fascinating, ain't it?

 

"but to those who are called"? As opposed to whom? I thought the arminians assert that everyone is called equally. </font>[/QUOTE]This passage does seem to support the idea of effectual calling if you approach this text with that presupposition. But I think if you look at the context you can see another viable interpretation, especially in light of the whole counsel of God's Word. Let's look back a few verses:

21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

Notice that "those who believe" are the ones who are saved. I know you agree with that, but knowing that Paul has just stated it is important in understanding the probable intent of what he is about to say:

22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom;

What Jews and Greeks is he refering to? Those who don't believe as can be clearly seen from verse 21. It is apparent that the letter to the Corinthians is a type of rebuke for those who are rejecting the message and this is a direct rebuke of those who refuse to believe the gospel.

23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness,

Again, what Jews and Greeks is Paul refering to? Those who have apparently heard the message but have not believed. These are the Jews and Gentiles who have heard and possibly even understand the call of the gospel but declare it as foolishness.

24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Who are "those"? Look back at verse 21 and you can clearly see that "those" are the ones who have believed. Those who believe were most certainly called, but does that conclusively prove that those who don't believe are not called? I don't think that can be shown in this text. The fact that many of these Jews and Gentiles have declared the message foolish proves that indeed they were called to faith and repentance.

Even Calvinists affirm that God calls all people to himself through the gospel (which is what is being discussed in this passage), but in order to maintain you position in passages like this you limit the call to the elect claiming that it is a different internal more effectual call, while the other external more general call has no power unto salvation. I don't know where in scripture it teaches that there are two callings, one to all people and another to the elect, can you point that out to me.

 

You can have a technical understanding of something, but not understand it's value. These things are appraised spiritually--it is only through the Spirit that their value is discerned.

The "understanding" that saves is not only a technical understanding of the gospel, but an understanding of it's worth--understanding that it is the power and wisdom of God rather than something of no value (foolishness) or of negative value (a stumbling block).

 

Very good, Mr. Bill! I can't wait until you get to the good part...

IMO, the connection isn't due to verse 21, but that shouldn't matter, since those who are called are those who believe.

Yes. And the reason? Because the text says "but to those who are called". It does NOT say "but among all who were called, which is everyone, it is to those who believed...".

Paul differentiated between the two groups by explicitly identifying the latter group as "who are called" and differentiating them from the first group with the words "but to those".

Then that must not be the "calling" that Paul is referring to here. Therefore one of two things must be true:

1. There is more than one "calling". This section cannot tell you how many callings there are, but since we know that one goes out to the whole world, there are at least two. Let's call the one that goes out to the whole world, say, a "general" call. From the above passage, we know there is at least one other calling which is associated with those who believe, and only those who believe. Let's call it the "effectual" call, since it applies to those who are effectively saved. Hey, I think we've got the makings of a doctrine here...

2. Paul is lying, and by association, so is God, since this is the inspired word. The difference really doesn't have anything to do with being called, since (according to you), there is only one call, and everyone is called in this respect.

We just got done studying an example, and you still don't know anywhere in scripture it teaches that there is an effectual call? Well, I guess there's no hope.

 

Well, the text doesn't say "to SOME of those who are called" but "to those who are called." Seems clear enough to me.

This is exactly one of those passage in which we see the two callings: the general call of the gospel, which is obvious here, and the call that is successful (also obvious)--the call that turns the general call of the gospel from foolishness and offensiveness to the power and wisdom of God.

 

Strong #2822 "kletos" is defined "invited; i.e appointed". Now, invited looks like it supports the Calvinistic concept that God only wills some to be saved, and passes over the rest. But it also means "appointed". But appointment does not necessarily imply unconditional election. It's like election itself. We don't elect anybody for president who didn't run for office. Now, "running" would be a "work" if we carried the analogy over exactly, but this is to give a rough idea. We must not confuse "election" or "appointment" with nomination, for all are nominated, but not everyone accepts the nomination.
And even those who are "called", this is the same word in Matt.22:14 "Many are called, but few are chosen". Here as well, it is obviously not unconditional election.