Justification

Excellent analysis, Amy.

 

I commend your use of Scripture.:thumbs:

 

No it doesn't. You even posted the text again and "does not have the Spirit" is nowhere to be found in that text.

Notice again "your" addition of the word "cannot." That word is NOT in the text. The text does not say the natural man is incapable of understanding. It says he finds the things of God foolishness. He doesn't want to understand them.

Again it doesn't say he does not accept, because he cannot accept. It says he does not accept, because they are foolish.

You simply can't add things to the text to make it say what you want it to say.

 

Thanks NP! I really need that!

 

1. But you must show why he deems the things of God foolishness.

2. It seems to me that the reason why one group accepts the things of God and why the other dismisses them as foolishness is precisely because of the Spirit. One has the Spirit and the other doesn't (vv.12, 14).

 

NASB
1Cr 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

NKJV
1Cr 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

KJV
1Cr 2:14 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.

NIV
1Cr 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Nor can
Neither can
Cannot
= not able or incapable

 

Amy you are making the case that he can not based on the fact that he doesn't have the Spirit living in him. That is simply speculation at best. He doesn't accept them because they are foolishness to him and he can't understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

And if someone is walking in the flesh it means they everything is being filtered through their mind not the Spirit.

Again there is nothing in the text that says this man is without the Spirit.

This is just the same thing that other folks do with other texts such as the saying the Lord, Lord criers were lying about their works when the text says nothing about them lying. Or saying the foolish virgins had not a single drop of oil, when that's not what the text says.

You all are more than welcome to hold on to those speculative beliefs, but I'm not going to base my doctrine on hoping that something that's not in the text is what the author meant. I think the Spirit was perfectly capable of saying exactly what He wanted said.

And it doesn't say the Lord, Lord criers were lying. It doesn't say the virgins didn't have a drop of oil and it doesn't say the natural man doesn't have the Spirit.

 

My interpretation is not speculative. It is just a plain reading of the text.

Why are spiritual things foolishness to the natural man?

Why does Paul say that he "cannot" understand them.

Why did you say that the word "cannot" is NOT in the text?

 

Amy it's not. You say the many did not have the Spirit. The plain reading of the text does not have that or it would say this man did not have the Spirit. By the plain reading of Scripture you can not get that, because it's not there.

Because he is walking in the flesh. He is letting "his" understanding rule the moment not the Spirit. If one is in the flesh the things of God will not make sense to them.

Because he is alive. When he is alive the flesh is ruling the moment not the Spirit. If you are operating by the flesh you can not understand Scripture.

My apology for that. I stand corrected and mis-spoke. Yum-Yum love that crow :laugh:. However, it doesn't not say he can not because the Spirit is not living in him.

That I'm still certain is not in the text. :thumbs:

 

JJump:

I have never heard this before. When you're operating in the flesh you cannot understand scripture??

The born again believer can and does understand scripture but may choose to ignore it. Or he may choose to ignore the conviction of the Holy Spirit and act out in the flesh. In fact, we are all guilty of this from time to time. It's called sin. But, at no time does the believer cease to understand scripture. That is just ridiculous.

P.S. Thanks for the apology.

 

Amy, you're spot on. It's really obvious that the comparison is believers to unbelievers. As usual, you have to mangle scripture to get any other interpretation out of it.

 

1. You have accused Amy of adding to the text, but where in the text does it say that the reason why a natural man does not understand the things of the Spirit is "because he is walking in the flesh. He is letting 'his' understanding rule the moment not the Spirit."

2. I haven't seen that in the text. Is that the plain reading of the text?

 

Yeah it says natural man. It doesn't say spiritually dead. Even spiritually alive (saved) people still have the natural man. It would have been much easier to see your interpretation had Paul said spiritually dead, the dead man, the man without the Spirit. But he just doesn't.

He says natural man. Natural does not automatically equate with spiritually dead or forever and ever and ever unsaved.

 

In this context it does. He is comparing the natural man to the Spirit indwelt man.

 

1. You are introducing other elements to the text that we are not considering.

2. The issue is about the "natural man" and why he fails to understand the things of the Spirit.

3. If you go back to 1 Cor 1:18-the present text, you would see that Paul is making all these contrasts.

4. The difference between one person understanding the things of God and the other not understanding the same things of God is the Spirit (vv.12, 14).

a. This is an obvious implication of the text.

b. Further, Paul says that we have received the Spirit to know (v.12).

c. How then can the natural man not understand the things of God if he had the Spirit?

d. Paul would be made to be nullifying his own argument.

 

1. But then when Paul wants to refer to the spiritual level of those who have the Spirit he uses different words:

a. To the spiritual mature he uses the word πνευματικοῖς, "Spiritual."

b. To the spiritually immature he uses the word σαρκίνοις, "fleshly."

2. He could have used ψυχικὸς, "natural," but he didn't. He did not because he was addressing a different group, the unsaved with this word in 2:14.

 

Natural man

We are all natural men.

It is the words of Jesus that is Spirit and life that is within us. The Holy Spirit reminds us of the words of Jesus, teaches us and guides us in the journey of life.

Whosoever can come to Jesus we are being drawned by the Father through the words of Jesus.

It is foolishness to us, but the foolishness of the gospel we are being saved by it. We just trust in Jesus. You do not have to understand. It is the work of God that we believe.

Do not lean on your own understanding that is what is making it foolishness. Just trust in Jesus through the foolishness of what is being preached.

It is the work of God that you believe.

It maybe foolishness to you, but God does love world that He sent His only begotten Son that whosever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

It maybe foolishness to you, but God does want all men to be saved and come to knowledge of the truth.

Do not walk away, because only in Jesus Christ can we be justified. Just trust in Jesus through the foolishnesss of what is being preached

 

And the contrast still holds up when speaking of the saved person because a saved person can be led by the Spirit or he can be led by the flesh (natural). Completely within the context of the text. And a much more plain reading of the text again because he mentions nothing about spiritually dead, without the Spirit or anything along those lines.

 

1. You have made no effort to answer my use of the different Greek words.

2. If I am correct, it is your contentions that the Greek is precise. Then what do you make of these different Greek words to refer to different classes of people.

3. You continue to appeal to the plain reading of the text, yet you do not accept its plain reading.

4. And when its plain reading doesn't fit your position, you interpose other ideas (see your post #109). Yet when others do it, you charge them of ignoring the plain reading.

5. Then we should not have commentaries. We should not even have this discussion.

6. But others would read and decide for themselves.

 

The scriptures we have been talking about do not speak of being "led" by the Spirit. They are speaking of the saved and the unsaved.

1Cr 1:18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

1Cr 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

To the unsaved (those who are perishing) spiritual things are foolishness.