John:6:38-39

[Revmitchell]

There is no "struggle" in evidence in that passage. People in that condition mock the things of God and consider them foolishness.

They do not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God because they cannot understand them. Understanding can only take place when they are indwelt with the Holy Spirit. The things from the Spirit of God can be discerned only through the Spirit.

They cannot. They are not able. Those in the flesh cannot please God. They are hostile toward God. They are spiritually blind. Many other signs of the inability of people apart from God's intervention are found in God's Word supporting the doctrine of the pervasive corruption and inability of man.

Once again, you rip that passage out of context when you do not place it in the context of 3:1-3. The comparison is being made that the Corinthians are in fact just exactly like the lost. Even the saved in 3:3 have an inability int he same way those lost in 2:14 do. Since 3:1-3 ruins your total inability theory you run from it as you did in this post. Every time you use 2:14 without 3:1-3 the way you do you use it in error.

 

[DHK]

The above are more samples of your very plain lies.

You have falsely accused me and need to aplogize. If you want to go on in your old ways then stay unrepentant.

1 Corinthians 2:14 ψυχικος δε ανθρωπος ου δεχεται τα του πνευματος του θεου μωρια γαρ αυτω εστιν και ου δυναται γνωναι οτι πνευματικως ανακρινεται

I accused you of translating something that wasn't in the text. If you quoted another version, I didn't see the reference which I already told you.
Now if you are honest you will take the verse and show in an honest and exegetical method how the verse says: "the person without the Spirit."

If you can't do that, then you are being dishonest with the text--even if you are using someone else.

 

[Revmitchell]

You want demonstrations of your false accusations? Look above. You have lied.

Such statements are simply debate tactics of which everyone including you know is not true.

 

[The Archangel]

I may not be a Greek scholar

Finally! You've stated something upon which we agree!

1 Corinthians 2:14 ψυχικος δε ανθρωπος ου δεχεται τα του πνευματος του θεου μωρια γαρ αυτω εστιν και ου δυναται γνωναι οτι πνευματικως ανακρινεται

Those three bolded words simply say: "But (the) natural man".

Well... no that's not entirely true. Woodenly it says "Natural but person." Yes, the "the" is implied.

But, I'll bet you can't tell me why the the "but," though second in word order, appears at the beginning of the sentence....

There are only three words there.

Of course this is a ridiculous statement. The entire passage is there. While three words may say something, what they mean is derived from the passage, not necessarily the lexical definition.

For instance, there is no Greek word that I'm aware of for "forever." Instead, the biblical authors (in the New Testament) use an idiom, something like "ages upon ages." But, it would be absolutely incorrect to look at the cumbersome Greek expression and insist on the lexical definition of αἰών and, as a result, argue that the Bible never references eternity as being eternal.

If you were to analyze Paul's entire discourse, you'd see the NIV gets the meaning right. It may be a dynamic equivalent, as opposed to a literal translation, but it does get the meaning here right--and that meaning is based in large part on the context of the entire passage.

ETA:

But, since you're so hung-up on the lexical term... Here's the BDAG entry for this word (used adjectivally):

ⓐ adj. ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος (Hippol., Ref. 5, 27, 3) an unspiritual pers., one who merely functions bodily, without being touched by the Spirit of God 1 Cor 2:14. σῶμα ψυχ. a physical body 15:44ab. The wisdom that does not come fr. above is called ἐπίγειος, ψυχική (unspiritual), δαιμονιώδης Js 3:15.

William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 1100.
​

Now, the BDAG is the so-called "Industry Standard" for Greek lexicons. So, in a word, yes--it does mean to convey "the person without the spirit."

The Archangel

 

[Rippon]

You have made up your own translation. It says "the natural man."

Here's where you start to rev up your false accusations. I have not "made up my own translation" and you very well knew it --but since lying is in your blood..you thought "Why not?"

I had quoted the start of verse 14 and then the start of verse 15 respectively in the NIV.

It does indeed have "natural man" in a number of versions for 1 Cor. 2:14. But it also has unspiritual and even non-Christian among other readings.

The point being is that the person in 1 Cor. 2:14 is Spiritless --an unsaved individual. Not a babe in Christ --not even born again.

I have not come across any translation that says "the person without the Spirit." You are just making things up. You allow your bias to get in the way and support your Calvinistic theories.

Despite the fact that you have quoted a post of mine where I cite the NIV for this verse: See post #67, made on 3/28/2015 at 8:26 PM.

Next to the KJV the NIV is the most well-known English translation and is the top seller. And yet you made the inane claim that you haven't come across it.

You are the one who enjoys making stuff up and have the audacity to call me on my integrity. You take the proverbial cake.

 

[Rippon]

You don't have a clue what you are talking about and are being about as dishonest as any person can be about the scripture here.

You are adding to the text, making up the text, just plain making things up. It is all lies on your part. You deliberately lied and were dishonest about the translation.

DHK -the master of mendacity has spoken.

I already cited in my previous post where I identified the NIV when quoting 1 Corinthians 2:14 back in post 67 (3/28/2015). I had aso cited the NIV by name with that text in post #89, 3/29/2015.

DHK revels in falsehoods. He might as well be called the prevaricator-in-chief.

He is too proud to confess that he has borne false testimony against me --repeatedly. So he is content to rest in his state of unrepentance. Not exactly model conduct for a moderator or, more importantly, a Christian.

 

[Revmitchell]

DHK revels in falsehoods.

I'm sorry that is just not true and you know better.

 

[Rippon]

I'm sorry that is just not true and you know better.

DHK must enjoy doing what he does regularly. He has quoted my posts wherein I cite the NIV for 1 Cor. 2:14. But then he turns around and intentionally tells me I am just making things up --that I made up my own translation. He said I deliberately lied and was being dishonest about the translation. The guy has some gall to say that junk when anyone can see the utter disregard for truth that he displays so often.

He needs to come clean regarding his base habits and apologize for his gross behavior.

 

[Revmitchell]

I have seen no gross behavior. What I have seen is his disagreement with you and your exaggeration of his posts.

 

[The Biblicist]

Jn. 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

1. In the underlined portion of verse 38 Jesus is claiming he came down from heaven specifically to do the Father's will. The specific aspect of the Father's will he came down to do, is then explicitly stated in verse 39 "that of all which he hath given me, I should lose nothing"

2. Does not this demand the Father had to have given this "ALL" prior to the incarnation or else how could Christ claim it is this aspect of the Father's will he came down to perform??

3. Does not the Perfect tense verb "given" also give support this act of giving was a completed action prior to the incarnation?

4. Since the "ALL" having been given is the stated specific intent for Christ coming to earth, then does not that demand that both were part of God's eternal purpose of salvation prior to the incarnation, prior to the foundation of the world that Christ came to fulfill?

5. Since Christ came to secure the salvation of "all" given, and the given had to occur prior to Christ's coming, does not that prove that both were part of the eternal purpose by God before the world began and the "given" are synonymous with the "chosen" to salvation (2 Thes. 2:13) before the world? If not, then who else but those "given" actually do come to Christ other than those "chosen to salvation" before the world began??????

6. How can it be possible to "give" a specific number "OF ALL" to Christ if the Father never first chose them to give to the Son?????? How could he give what he never chose or selected, since the given constitute "ALL" given equal all coming equals "OF ALL" actually finally saved??? How is it possible for the Father to "give" a specific people the Father never first chose to give to the Son?

Well, lets get back to the OP. I had been charged with assuming some of my points. I answered those charges in detail and showed I made absolutely no assumptions but in one case simply gave the necessary inference and that is God's choice of those given had to precede the incarnation simply because Jesus said that He came in order to secure those which had already been "given" to him by the Father (v. 38 - Perfect tense). Therefore, that demands that the act of giving preceded the incarnation and you cannot give what you first have not chosen to give and there must have been deliberated choice involved because it is a limited number "OF ALL" with an effectual consequence "NONE SHALL BE LOST." The given are not all men without exception and therefore that necessarily infers they were chosen out of all mankind to be given to Christ PRIOR to his incarnation as he could hardly say I came (incarnation) in order to fulfill that specific will of the Father about that specific number with that specific outcome.

 

[Rippon]

I have seen no gross behavior. What I have seen is his disagreement with you and your exaggeration of his posts.

You are pretending that you have no reading comprehension.

When the guy says that I have made up my own translation. --

When DHK says he has not come across any treanslation that says "the person without the Spirit." --

When the mod says again that I am just making things up. --

When the Canadian says again that I am making up the text --that I am making things up. --

When DHK says that it is just lies on my part. --

When DHK, the Canadian mod says I have deliberately lied and have been dishonest about the translation. --

Then I come to the conclusion that he enjoys breaking the 9th commandment. And his posts on this thread is not the only evidence --he has used the same tactics in other threads against me and other posters with no apology forthcoming. That's just the way he is.

 

[DHK]

If you were to analyze Paul's entire discourse, you'd see the NIV gets the meaning right. It may be a dynamic equivalent, as opposed to a literal translation, but it does get the meaning here right--and that meaning is based in large part on the context of the entire passage.

ETA:

But, since you're so hung-up on the lexical term... Here's the BDAG entry for this word (used adjectivally):

ⓐ adj. ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος (Hippol., Ref. 5, 27, 3) an unspiritual pers., one who merely functions bodily, without being touched by the Spirit of God 1 Cor 2:14. σῶμα ψυχ. a physical body 15:44ab. The wisdom that does not come fr. above is called ἐπίγειος, ψυχική (unspiritual), δαιμονιώδης Js 3:15.

William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 1100.
​

Now, the BDAG is the so-called "Industry Standard" for Greek lexicons. So, in a word, yes--it does mean to convey "the person without the spirit."

The Archangel

The NIV is one of the poorest translations I know of, for one of the very reasons you gave--the over-use of dynamic equivalency.
The word natural, as you say means "unspiritual." But "unspiritual" does not have to mean "unsaved," and that is not what the context demands. This is where you fail and others fail. Study this verse in the entirety of chapter two and three right from the beginning to the end of chapter three. Consistently throughout these two chapters Paul reverts back to this same theme of comparing spiritual with unspiritual, carnal with non-carnal, or spiritual with carnal. The contrast is there. It is summed up in the judgment seat of Christ. You know well that at the Bema Seat of Christ there will be no unregenerate there--just spiritual and carnal. The spiritual will receive rewards worthy of gold, silver and precious stones. The carnal will receive their rewards: wood, hay and stubble--but they themselves shall be saved. Their salvation is secured. There is no loss of salvation here, only loss of reward, for the carnal way they have lived on earth.

The contrast is consistently between the spiritual Christian and the carnal Christian all the way throughout both of these chapters: two and three.

 

[Rippon]

Snippets From Various Commentators re: 1 Cor. 2:14

Matthew Henry : Thus, the natural man, the man destitute of the Spirit of God

John Gill : an unregenerate man

Adam Clarke : the man who is in a state of naturem without the regenerating grace of God

Barnes Notes : It refers to unregenerate people

Robertson's Word Pictures : A natural man, an unregenerate man

Wesley's Explanatory Notes : But the natural man --That is, every man who hath not the Spirit

Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible : the man without the Spirit, man as he is without God

Thomas D.D. Constable's Expository Notes of the Bible : The natural man is any person who does not possess the Holy Spirit, namely, unbelievers.

John Piper : The unspiritual man is the natural man, the man who is merely human, who is not indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

I listened to Dr. Michael Barrett last night on this passage : the unconverted man dead in trespasses and sins.

 

[DHK]

Matthew Henry : Thus, the natural man, the man destitute of the Spirit of God

John Gill : an unregenerate man

Adam Clarke : the man who is in a state of naturem without the regenerating grace of God

Barnes Notes : It refers to unregenerate people

Robertson's Word Pictures : A natural man, an unregenerate man

Wesley's Explanatory Notes : But the natural man --That is, every man who hath not the Spirit

Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible : the man without the Spirit, man as he is without God

Thomas D.D. Constable's Expository Notes of the Bible : The natural man is any person who does not possess the Holy Spirit, namely, unbelievers.

John Piper : The unspiritual man is the natural man, the man who is merely human, who is not indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

I listened to Dr. Michael Barrett last night on this passage : the unconverted man dead in trespasses and sins.

Do I care? These are men's ideas. That is not what the context says.
Neither does the verse require that meaning.
Birds of a feather flock together.

How many of the above are Calvinists?
Never mind, it really doesn't matter.

The point is this: It may describe an unsaved man. But chapter three makes clear that the Corinthians were acting just like the person described in 2:14--whether unsaved or not. If the person in 2:14 is unsaved, the person in 1Cor.3:1-5 is acting just like him, and therefore is carnal.
We are in the world, but that does not give us license to act according to the world. That is what the Corinthians were doing.

1Co 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
Brethren--brothers in Christ: Christians.

"I could not speak unto you as unto spiritual." They were Christians, but they were not spiritual.

"But as unto carnal." They were Christians and carnal at the same time--Carnal Christians. Why?
--One of the reasons: "babes in Christ"--that is what Paul calls them. They were immature spiritually. They had not grown.

1Co 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
--They are carnal because they are not able to be fed with meat. After 1 1/2 years Paul still has feed them milk. What an atrocity! They should be ready for meat, but because of their carnality they are not ready for the meat of God's Word.

1Co 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
How are they carnal?
Among you there is:
Envy,
Strife,
divisions,
And therefore they are Carnal. Carnal Christians. Immature in both spiritual and their practical every day life.

1Co 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
--They are carnal because of their divisiveness. Their church was divided into various sects. It was known for its divisiveness. There was a lot of carnality here.
Thus the description of 1Cor.2:14 described them. They could not understand the things of the Spirit of God because they walked according to the course of this world, and not according to the Spirit of God.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

Do I care? These are men's ideas. How many of the above are Calvinists?
Never mind, it really doesn't matter

.

It does matter.

This unteachable spirit is why you do not have truth here and in other places.

Do I care?

You should. Every God given teacher on that list could school you and you despise them.

These are men's ideas.

Of course they are mens ideas. God has chosen to use men to teach in this economy. These are mens ideas based on their labor in the word and doctrine. Are you in unbelief that God could use "these mens ideas" to correct your false musings.

How many of the above are Calvinists?

Most solid teaching and writing has come from such. if you did not have your anti cal agenda you would admit such.

 

[Rippon]

The NIV is one of the poorest translations I know of,

And you don't know much.

The word natural, as you say means "unspiritual."

Yes, without the Spirit.

But "unspiritual" does not have to mean "unsaved,"

Yes, in fact it does. The one described in 1 Cor. 2:14 is an unbeliever as the HCSB and NET Bible render it. Unspiritual = no Spirit =Spiritless.

and that is not what the context demands.

You keep yelling context, yet ignore the immediate context of the passage itself.

The contrast is consistently between the spiritual Christian and the carnal Christian all the way throughout both of these chapters: two and three.

You are very stubborn when you meet face-to-face with facts. You still want to maintain your illogical and unscriptural stance. (And a fair amount of deceitfulness too.) You refuse to yield to to scriptural authority.

The one in 1 Cor. 2:14 does not have the Holy Spirit. That person is not a Christian, period.

Again :

The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

Let it sink in DHK. This person cannot understand the things that come from the Spirit of God because there is no indwelling of the Spirit --hence no comprehension --no discernment.

This person regards the things that come from the Spirit of God as foolishness. That is a dangerous state to be in. Certainly an unregenerate state. We read in 1 Cor. 1:18 :

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who who are perishing...

Get that? The very same person is spoken of in 1 Cor. 1:18 and 1 Cor. 2:14 --this person is still in their sins, without hope, without God in this world.

But [I love it] to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

In the very same verse it speaks of the lost and the saved. It's much like 2 Cor. 2:15 and 16 in that respect.

For we are to God the pleasing aroma of Christ among those who are saved and those who are perishing. To the one we are an aroma that brings death; to the other, an aroma that brings life. And who is equal to such a task?

 

[Rippon]

Do I care?

Apparently.

That is not what the context says.
Neither does the verse require that meaning.

It is indeed what the text demands.

Birds of a feather flock together.

How many of the above are Calvinists?

Dr. Gill, Adam Clarke/John Wesley are birds of a feather? ;-)

I tried to make it about 50/50. But the explanation of this verse is not about Calvinism vs. Arminianism. Even most non-Calvinistic commentators say that the person in 1 Cor. 2:14 is unregenerate. I am not aware of any Calvinistic scholar who insists that the person in 1 Cor. 2:14 was saved.

Never mind, it really doesn't matter.

Apparently it does to you.

The point is this: It may describe an unsaved man.

Well, here at least, you have kept the door ajar.

 

[convicted1]

Do I care? These are men's ideas. That is not what the context says.
Neither does the verse require that meaning.
Birds of a feather flock together.

How many of the above are Calvinists?
Never mind, it really doesn't matter.

The point is this: It may describe an unsaved man. But chapter three makes clear that the Corinthians were acting just like the person described in 2:14--whether unsaved or not. If the person in 2:14 is unsaved, the person in 1Cor.3:1-5 is acting just like him, and therefore is carnal.
We are in the world, but that does not give us license to act according to the world. That is what the Corinthians were doing.

1Co 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
Brethren--brothers in Christ: Christians.

"I could not speak unto you as unto spiritual." They were Christians, but they were not spiritual.

"But as unto carnal." They were Christians and carnal at the same time--Carnal Christians. Why?
--One of the reasons: "babes in Christ"--that is what Paul calls them. They were immature spiritually. They had not grown.

1Co 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
--They are carnal because they are not able to be fed with meat. After 1 1/2 years Paul still has feed them milk. What an atrocity! They should be ready for meat, but because of their carnality they are not ready for the meat of God's Word.

1Co 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
How are they carnal?
Among you there is:
Envy,
Strife,
divisions,
And therefore they are Carnal. Carnal Christians. Immature in both spiritual and their practical every day life.

1Co 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
--They are carnal because of their divisiveness. Their church was divided into various sects. It was known for its divisiveness. There was a lot of carnality here.
Thus the description of 1Cor.2:14 described them. They could not understand the things of the Spirit of God because they walked according to the course of this world, and not according to the Spirit of God.

When someone takes a swing at their theology, realize they're wrong, yet try to kick against the truth...

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Absolutely. One doesn't receive the Holy Spirit until he puts his faith in Christ.

What happens first is that the gospel is preached and heard.
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.
There is your source of faith--the Word of God. It follows the hearing of the Word. Only after a person puts their faith in the gospel message can a person be regenerated.
.

What about Cornelious , he "feared" God scripture tells us in Acts 10:2 before he heard the gospel preached by Peter. Unregenerated men do not fear God as Romans 3:18 tells us, "18 There is no fear of God before their eyes."

 

[Yeshua1]

Calvinism loves to add to scripture to alter it to fit Calvinist doctrine. Here the idea is that Jesus will not lose anyone who has been given to Him. Calvinism then alters it to read, Jesus will not loss anyone who have been given to Him at the present time. Thus requiring everyone to have been given to Jesus who will not be lost before Christ died. Silly, but there you have it.

How about just accepting the plain message intended here that ONLY those whom the father gave to jesus get saved, and once saved, they are eternally secured by power of God?