• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Is knowing Jesus as the Son of God a requirement to have eternal life or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Luke2427

Active Member
Yes...was that the main purpose? No.
yes.
Mainly pride and carnality.
Are you serious?!? They were BELIEVERS, Luke! His purpose was to deal with several moral problems and the divisions in the church that formed as people were taking allegiance with Apollos, Peter, Paul or Christ...and to answer questions that had been asked of him in a letter from the Corinthians.

You are way right of center on this!

Not in 2:1 webdog.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

And I, brethren - Keeping up the tender and affectionate style of address.

When I came unto you - When I came at first to preach the gospel at Corinth. Act 18:1ff.

Everybody knows this except you.

People's New Testament

2:1 Christ Crucified

SUMMARY OF I CORINTHIANS 2:


And I, brethren, when I came to you. Paul has shown, in the preceding chapter, that God chose the things and persons which the world calls foolish, and weak, and base, and of no account, in order to confute the world's wisdom and to overthrow its power. He now shows that this harmonizes with the means used at Corinth in the founding of the church.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Luke2427

Active Member
The church at Corinth was lost??? How could it be a church then? Why did Paul address them this way:

1 Corinthians 1:4 I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ;

1 Corinthians 1:6 Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you:



Maybe they were regenerated but not saved yet. :laugh:

He is talking about in chapter 2 the time when he first came to them when they were lost, Amy.

How can you not see this???

Let me give you some advice- don't follow Webdog- he's a fine fellow, I'm sure, but he does not have the theological background or the exegetical ability to lead you properly.

That Paul is speaking about the time he first came to them is clear as day- clear as day. Anyone who denies that probably should not be so bold as to debate on a matter of this significance.
 

Luke2427

Active Member
LOL Amy, I can't sit back and be quiet any longer.

This guy Luke is way off track.

Good luck!!!

I'll tell you what. If I can prove that my interpetation of I Corinthians 2- that he is speaking about a time when they were lost- is correct, then you start a thread entitled- "I apologize for saying Luke was way off- I was wrong"

Deal?
 

preacher4truth

Active Member
No thanks. I'll pass.

I can't stand again to see you post your twisted views, and run lip as you did on "Calvinism Better at Evangelism" post, or whatever it was. And that was running your mouth for no reason. At all. Maybe you ought to run on over there and take a look see.


I'm not going to feed the troll.

Have a good one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I just read 1 Corinthians 1 and 2 and I do see that Paul is addressing when he first came to them - when they were first saved. I then looked at Matthew Henry who says

"1Cr 2:1-5

In this passage the apostle pursues his design, and reminds the Corinthians how he acted when he first preached the gospel among them."

then later

"1Cr 2:6-16

In this part of the chapter the apostle shows them that though he had not come to them with the excellency of human wisdom, with any of the boasted knowledge and literature of the Jews or Greeks, yet he had communicated to them a treasure of the truest and the highest wisdom"

Matthew Henry agrees that chapter two is addressing the Corinthians regarding how they were BEFORE they were saved.
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
Yes, and everyone one that believeth (present tense) is born of God (past tense).

Therefore, everyone that believes started believing AFTER they were born of God.
Wrong, you are reading that into the text Luke! It is only saying those who are currently believing (an action completed in the past continuing forward) has at some point been born again. It does NOT state when this occurs, it is eisegesis to state it does. These texts do not prove nor disprove pre-faith regeneration...they have NOTHING to do with it whatsoever.

I'm a believer (present tense) and I was born again at some point before today. With this information alone you cannot tell me when I was born again. That is what John was saying.
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
He is talking about in chapter 2 the time when he first came to them when they were lost, Amy.

How can you not see this???

Let me give you some advice- don't follow Webdog- he's a fine fellow, I'm sure, but he does not have the theological background or the exegetical ability to lead you properly.

That Paul is speaking about the time he first came to them is clear as day- clear as day. Anyone who denies that probably should not be so bold as to debate on a matter of this significance.
Your arrogance is seeping through again, Luke. Me thinks you have a much higher view of your biblical prowess than you really do, particularly if you think Paul is addressing the lost in Chapter 2. I would hope Amy doesn't "follow me" (unless it's Twitter)...I would hope she doesn't follow anyone but Christ. As we should do with any believer, we take the cherry and spit out the pits. If you automatically assume every calvinist has pit-free cherries...and everyone else a bowl of pits...I'm afraid you are not being wise.

Paul is addressing HOW he came to them...

News flash: I'm indwelt with the same Spirit as you and I spend time in God's Word. No amount of letters after my name can trump this. I don't put my trust in my "natural man" to understand spiritual matters, but having the mind of Christ I CAN "be so bold as to debate on a matter of this significance". You need to ask yourself where your boldness is coming from...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Web - You don't think chapter 2 is addressing when Paul first came to them?
Paul is addressing a church. He notes in chapter one that they were saved, and baptized, though not he but another did most of the baptizing. He is addressing them as a church, as believers. He is not addressing them when he first came, but rather reminding them how he came to them at the first.
The emphasis of the entire chapter is how he came to them. It is a continuation of chapter one. He did not come to them as an orator, as one with enticing words, one that would lure them by deceitful means, or by any means of trickery. Remember that there were false teachers in this church.

That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. (1 Corinthians 2:5)

He had wanted to make sure that their faith was not based on man's wisdom but rather in the power of God. He is reminding them of these things. The whole purpose of this is leading up to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which gives us the power to understand spiritual truths.

But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. (1 Corinthians 2:10)

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. (1 Corinthians 2:12)

The unsaved man cannot discern or understand the things that a saved person can because he doesn't have the Spirit of God.
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. (1 Corinthians 2:14)

Those introductory verses were as a prelude leading up to the teaching that he is giving these believers in the rest of the chapter about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and its benefits.
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
Web - You don't think chapter 2 is addressing when Paul first came to them?
No I don't when taking the entire book and chapter in context (if you are referring to all of chapter 2 speaking of them while in their lost state). The church was addressing spiritual issues using worldly means and philosophies and Paul was stating that when he first came to them, his preaching was not using these same standards of speech and philosophies. He tells them further on that the natural man (greek for "animal" man...the flesh) cannot discern the things of God...but...the spiritual man can, and it's this reason they have the mind of Christ. They were allowing their natural man to decide spiritual issues.

I see DHK addressed this at the same time as I did...and probably clearer. I guess Amy can cross him off as another one to ignore on the BB :laugh:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Here's the passage:

1 Corinthians 2

Proclaiming Christ Crucified

1And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. 2For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, 4and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
Wisdom from the Spirit

6Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. 7But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9But, as it is written,

"What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,
nor the heart of man imagined,
what God has prepared for those who love him"—
10these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 11For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

14The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

We see clearly in this passage that the Corinthians have had a changed spirit and thus can understand the things of God but that the world cannot understand it because it is spiritually discerned. It is not speaking of a believer using his flesh to think but instead an unregenerate man. I'm looking at some commentaries and I see Matthew Henry say:

The natural man receiveth not the things of God, for they are foolishness to him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned, v. 14. The natural man, the animal man. Either, (1.) The man under the power of corruption, and never yet illuminated by the Spirit of God, such as Jude calls sensual, not having the Spirit, v. 19. Men unsanctified receive not the things of God. The understanding, through the corruption of nature by the fall, and through the confirmation of this disorder by customary sin, is utterly unapt to receive the rays of divine light; it is prejudiced against them. The truths of God are foolishness to such a mind. The man looks on them as trifling and impertinent things, not worth his minding. The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not, Jn. 1:5. Not that the natural faculty of discerning is lost, but evil inclinations and wicked principles render the man unwilling to enter into the mind of God, in the spiritual matters of his kingdom, and yield to their force and power. It is the quickening beams of the Spirit of truth and holiness that must help the mind to discern their excellency, and to so thorough a conviction of their truth as heartily to receive and embrace them. Thus the natural man, the man destitute of the Spirit of God, cannot know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Jamieson, Faucett and Brown agree:

14. natural man--literally, "a man of animal soul." As contrasted with the spiritual man, he is governed by the animal soul, which overbears his spirit, which latter is without the Spirit of God ( Jud 1:19 ). So the animal (English Version, "natural") body, or body led by the lower animal nature (including both the mere human fallen reason and heart), is contrasted with the Spirit-quickened body ( 1Cr 15:44-46 ). The carnal man (the man led by bodily appetites, and also by a self-exalting spirit, estranged from the divine life) is closely akin; so too the "earthly." "Devilish," or "demon-like"; "led by an evil spirit," is the awful character of such a one, in its worst type ( Jam 3:15 ).
receiveth not--though they are offered to him, and are "worthy of being received by all men" ( 1Ti 1:15 ).
they are foolishness unto him--whereas he seeks "wisdom" ( 1Cr 1:22 ).
neither can he--Not only does he not, but he cannot know them, and therefore has no wish to "receive" them ( Rom 8:7 ).

15. He that is spiritual--literally, "the spiritual (man)." In 1Cr 2:14 , it is "A [not 'the,' as English Version] natural man." The spiritual is the man distinguished above his fellow men, as he in whom the Spirit rules. In the unregenerate, the spirit which ought to be the organ of the Holy Spirit (and which is so in the regenerate), is overridden by the animal soul, and is in abeyance, so that such a one is never called "spiritual."

It is clear that the "natural man" does not mean that a believer is using his natural state to think but instead it is speaking of an unregenerate soul. There are two types of men spoken of in this passage: the spiritual person (regenerate person) or the natural person (unregenerate). It's quite clear in the text. The "natural man" is never considered saved.
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
We see clearly in this passage that the Corinthians have had a changed spirit and thus can understand the things of God but that the world cannot understand it because it is spiritually discerned. It is not speaking of a believer using his flesh to think but instead an unregenerate man. I'm looking at some commentaries and I see Matthew Henry say:
If the entire book was this one chapter, you may be correct. This is the problem the commentators you quoted have, they take this chapter not as a continuation of Paul's thoughts from chapter 1 (as it should be), but an entirely different thought altogether.
It is clear that the "natural man" does not mean that a believer is using his natural state to think but instead it is speaking of an unregenerate soul. There are two types of men spoken of in this passage: the spiritual person (regenerate person) or the natural person (unregenerate). It's quite clear in the text. The "natural man" is never considered saved.
This is not about two kinds of people, but two kinds of ways to understand spiritual matters. They should be relying on the mind of Christ, but their actions are CLEAR from chapter 1 they were not.
 

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
If the entire book was this one chapter, you may be correct. This is the problem the commentators you quoted have, they take this chapter not as a continuation of Paul's thoughts from chapter 1 (as it should be), but an entirely different thought altogether.
This is not about two kinds of people, but two kinds of ways to understand spiritual matters. They should be relying on the mind of Christ, but their actions are CLEAR from chapter 1 they were not.

Don't you think it's unusual for two commentaries to have the same mistake? No one is looking at a chapter alone. I don't think the commentaries that have withstood the test of time would have gotten there if they just took verses out of the context of the whole book.

I honestly have not found any commentary that says that verse 14 is speaking of saved people. It is not the understanding of the verse at all.
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
Don't you think it's unusual for two commentaries to have the same mistake? No one is looking at a chapter alone. I don't think the commentaries that have withstood the test of time would have gotten there if they just took verses out of the context of the whole book.

I honestly have not found any commentary that says that verse 14 is speaking of saved people. It is not the understanding of the verse at all.
Adam Clarke is one I know that agrees with me, and I believe Robertson, but can't remember off hand. I've read others from the Grace Evangelical Society, too.

It's really not much different than the false understanding of Romans 9 - 11 dealing with individual salvation and not the nation of Israel.
 

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Adam Clarke is one I know that agrees with me, and I believe Robertson, but can't remember off hand. I've read others from the Grace Evangelical Society, too.

It's really not much different than the false understanding of Romans 9 - 11 dealing with individual salvation and not the nation of Israel.

I just read Adam Clarke's and he does not agree with you:

Verse 14. But the natural man] yucikov, The animal man-the man who is in a mere state of nature, and lives under the influence of his animal passions; for the word yuch, which we often translate soul, means the lower and sensitive part of man, in opposition to nouv, the understanding or rational part. The Latins use anima to signify these lower passions; and animus to signify the higher. The person in question is not only one who either has had no spiritual teaching, or has not profited by it; but one who lives for the present world, having no respect to spiritual or eternal things.

This yucikov, or animal man, is opposed to the pneumatikov, or spiritual man: and, as this latter is one who is under the influence of the Spirit of God, so the former is one who is without that influence.

The apostle did speak of those high and sublime spiritual things to these animal men; but he explained them to those which were spiritual. He uses this word in this sense, chap. iii. 1; ix. 11; and particularly in verse 15 of the present chapter: He that is spiritual judgeth all things. But the natural man-The apostle appears to give this-as a reason why he explained those deep spiritual things to spiritual men; because the animal man-the man who is in a state of nature, without the regenerating grace of the Spirit of God, receiveth not the things of the Spirit-neither apprehends nor comprehends them: he has no relish for them; he considers it the highest wisdom to live for this world. Therefore these spiritual things are foolishness to him; for while he is in his animal state he cannot see their excellency, because they are spiritually discerned, and he has no spiritual mind.
 

Luke2427

Active Member
No thanks. I'll pass.

I can't stand again to see you post your twisted views, and run lip as you did on "Calvinism Better at Evangelism" post, or whatever it was. And that was running your mouth for no reason. At all. Maybe you ought to run on over there and take a look see.


I'm not going to feed the troll.

Have a good one.


Good choice. You were certainly going to lose that one as Ann proves above.

Drive by posting like you did here is, IMO, cowardly. Make an argumetn and be man enough to let it stand up to sincere scrutiny or don't post. This is a debate site - not a drive by posting where you get to pop in and say- "He's way off!" without proving it. That's pointless and inflammatory and anti-intellectual.

Stay in the pocket and go a round or two or don't post. It's like a little kid I remember in junior high who wanted to look tough to his buddies by picking on me, who was quite a bit larger than him, and so what he would do is run by and smack me from behind and run off before I could whip him for it. It meant he was a coward without honor.

I think that is what you make yourself in a debate site when you pop in and make some smart alek comment like that and then don't stand your ground and back it up. Either recognize that the guy is bigger than you and can whip you and leave him alone or pop him and stand in the pocket and face the consequences.

Be a man, Bud, is all I am asking.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Luke2427

Active Member
I just read Adam Clarke's and he does not agree with you:

This is a good point Ann- I hope Webdog will learn something here.

Adam Clarke is a GENUINE Arminian. He is Arminian on all five points. He is a Wesleyan Arminian- believes you can lose your salvation and get it back and lose it again- I mean he's the whole package.

AND EVEN ADAM CLARKE RECOGNIZES THAT 1 COR 2 IS TALKING ABOUT THE LOST.

The reason Webdog makes this error often is because he thinks that he does not need to respect the opinions of scholars and heroes of the faith.

He must not even look at a commentary before he goes off on these wild tangents about me being a heretic or ignorant of hermeneutics or whatever hyperbole he employs to demean me and Calvinists.

But then he winds up getting embarrassed when someone like you comes along and points out- Hey, Webdog, even scholars who believe what you believe do not agree with you! Luke is not alone in his interpretation of that passage- you are.

I hope he will humble himself as a result of your proving him wrong here and think before he hurls some silly, baseless accusation again.

But it will require him recognizing and yielding to the fact that there are wiser men than himself and that what they think about a passage counts.

We will see if he can do this.
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
I just read Adam Clarke's and he does not agree with you:
Nothing there disagrees with what I said at all, in fact supports it.

I found the following from Clarke...

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]CHAPTER II. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The apostle makes an apology for his manner of preaching, 1. And gives the reason why he adopted that manner, 2-5. He shows that this preaching, notwithstanding it was not with excellence of human speech or wisdom, yet was the mysterious wisdom of God, which the princes of this world did not know, and which the Spirit of God alone could reveal, 6-10. It is the Spirit of God only that can reveal the things of God, 11. The apostles of Christ know the things of God by the Spirit of God, and teach them, not in the words of man's wisdom, but in the words of that Spirit, 12, 13. The natural man cannot discern the things of the Spirit, 14. But the spiritual man can discern and teach them, because he has the mind of Christ, 15, 16.
[/FONT]



[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
[/FONT]

 

Luke2427

Active Member
Nothing there disagrees with what I said at all, in fact supports it.

I found the following from Clarke...

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]CHAPTER II. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The apostle makes an apology for his manner of preaching, 1. And gives the reason why he adopted that manner, 2-5. He shows that this preaching, notwithstanding it was not with excellence of human speech or wisdom, yet was the mysterious wisdom of God, which the princes of this world did not know, and which the Spirit of God alone could reveal, 6-10. It is the Spirit of God only that can reveal the things of God, 11. The apostles of Christ know the things of God by the Spirit of God, and teach them, not in the words of man's wisdom, but in the words of that Spirit, 12, 13. The natural man cannot discern the things of the Spirit, 14. But the spiritual man can discern and teach them, because he has the mind of Christ, 15, 16.
[/FONT]



[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
[/FONT]



Here's what he says, Webdog:

because the animal man-the man who is in a state of nature, without the regenerating grace of the Spirit of God, receiveth not the things of the Spirit-neither apprehends nor comprehends them:

They are lost folks- as I said before; everybody recognizes that but you. You're whipped- just yield. Can you not do that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top