The Golden Rule Of Interpretation

[Marooncat79]

Let me repeat, the claim that to stick with the least that is being said might "shrink" the scope is false.

In their Natural, unregenerate sate, is not in dispute.

1 Cor. 2:14 does NOT say the natural person cannot understand any of the things of the Spirit God. That is an expansion.

Another expansion is the meaning of "opening the heart." All it means, i.e. the least it means, is to explain something in a way that is understandable to the person.

Ask yourself why Paul speaks to "men of flesh" using "spiritual milk?" 1 Cor. 3:1.

By using spiritual milk he knew he might win some! Therefore the lost can understand spiritual milk but not spiritual solid food, because a person must have learned from their indwelt spirit sufficiently to understand spiritual solid food (meat). 1 Cor. 3:1-3.

And then you rewrite James 2:5 claiming it does not mean God chooses individuals rich in faith, but only honors those rich in faith.

Nuff said...

Where is the word “any” found in I Cor 2:14?

Ill hang up. But i definitely won't listen

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Let me repeat, the claim that to stick with the least that is being said might "shrink" the scope is false.

In their Natural, unregenerate sate, is not in dispute.

1 Cor. 2:14 does NOT say the natural person cannot understand any of the things of the Spirit God. That is an expansion.

Another expansion is the meaning of "opening the heart." All it means, i.e. the least it means, is to explain something in a way that is understandable to the person.

Ask yourself why Paul speaks to "men of flesh" using "spiritual milk?" 1 Cor. 3:1.

By using spiritual milk he knew he might win some! Therefore the lost can understand spiritual milk but not spiritual solid food, because a person must have learned from their indwelt spirit sufficiently to understand spiritual solid food (meat). 1 Cor. 3:1-3.

And then you rewrite James 2:5 claiming it does not mean God chooses individuals rich in faith, but only honors those rich in faith.

Nuff said...

Van, thank you for your thoughts. My point has been that we should neither expand the text nor shrink it. The “least the words are saying” must still include everything the words actually say, and we must let the rest of Scripture speak to the question of how God overcomes the natural man’s inability.

On 1 Corinthians 2:14, the verse says the natural man cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God as natural. That is the plain statement. The verse does not list exceptions such as “spiritual milk,” nor does it say that the natural man can understand some spiritual things but not others. That distinction is not in the text. Paul’s point in chapter 3 is not that the unregenerate can understand spiritual milk, but that the regenerate Corinthians were still carnal and therefore not ready for solid food. He is speaking to believers, not to the natural man of 2:14.

As for “opening the heart,” Acts 16:14 does not say that Paul merely explained something more clearly. It says, “Whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.” The least the words are saying is that God acted upon her heart so that she responded. That is more than explanation. It is divine initiative.

On James 2:5, the text says God has chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith. The question is whether James is describing a decree from eternity or the kind of people God delights to honor. The context is about partiality in the assembly, not about eternal election. Other passages speak to the order of salvation, such as “whosoever believeth” in John 3:16 and “through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth” in 2 Thessalonians 2:13. Those verses show that faith and love matter in God’s choosing. That is why I read James 2:5 as descriptive, not decretal.

My aim is simply to let all the verses speak. The natural man cannot understand spiritual truth on his own, but God can confront him, convict him, give light, and open his heart. That is the biblical sequence.

Yours in Him,

Tony

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It is a blatantly false claim that "the things" refers to "all the things!" It could mean "all the things" or could refer to some of the things. Thus the least God is saying is "some of the things.

Very simply, you are denying the very words of Scripture because they contradict your faulty theology.
The Holy Spirit says that the natural man does not receive the things of the Sprit of God. Why not? Because they are foolishness to him.
But Van says that the natural man does receive the things of the Spirit of God - not all of them, but some of them. Therefore they cannot be foolishness to him so the Holy Spirit has made a mistake.

 

[Van]

Where is the word “any” found in I Cor 2:14?

Ill hang up. But i definitely won't listen

The deflection and absurdity defense. They cannot defend their additions to scripture to pour their dark ages doctrine into the text.

 

[Van]

On 1 Corinthians 2:14, the verse says the natural man cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God as natural. That is the plain statement. The verse does not list exceptions such as “spiritual milk,” nor does it say that the natural man can understand some spiritual things but not others. That distinction is not in the text. Paul’s point in chapter 3 is not that the unregenerate can understand spiritual milk, but that the regenerate Corinthians were still carnal and therefore not ready for solid food. He is speaking to believers, not to the natural man of 2:14

Here we have the unstated claim the things must mean all the things. Nonsense. The context clearly teaches the natural man cannot understand the spiritual solid food things, but men of flesh can understand spiritual milk.

Next, we have since one point teaches this, then another point cannot teach that. More nonsense.

And finally, the "Paul was speaking to believers" absurdity. How was he speaking? In the very same way he spoke to men of flesh using spiritual milk. Anyone who denies this has no regard for "Sola Scripture.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Here we have the unstated claim the things must mean all the things. Nonsense. The context clearly teaches the natural man cannot understand the spiritual solid food things, but men of flesh can understand spiritual milk.

Next, we have since one point teaches this, then another point cannot teach that. More nonsense.

And finally, the "Paul was speaking to believers" absurdity. How was he speaking? In the very same way he spoke to men of flesh using spiritual milk. Anyone who denies this has no regard for "Sola Scripture.

Van, you are smuggling a universal meaning into the text that Paul himself does not write. The verse does not say “all the things of the Spirit of God,” and it certainly does not say “any of the things.” You are inserting a scope that is not in the passage.

The context makes the distinction clear. Paul speaks of solid food and milk. The natural man cannot receive the solid‑food things, the deep things of God revealed to the mature. But Paul also says he spoke to the Corinthians as men of flesh, and he did so by giving them milk, not solid food. That means there are spiritual things that can be received in milk form by those who are not spiritual.

Your reply tries to avoid this by saying Paul was speaking to believers in chapter 3. But the issue is not who he was speaking to, the issue is how he was speaking. And Paul explicitly says he spoke to them as men of flesh, which is the very category you claim cannot receive anything spiritual. Yet Paul says they received milk.

So your position requires three additions to Scripture:

1. That “the things” means “all the things.”
2. That the milk/solid‑food distinction does not apply.
3. That speaking to believers somehow changes the category of speech Paul himself identifies.

None of those additions come from the text. Paul’s own distinction stands: the natural man cannot receive the solid‑food things, but spiritual truth in milk form is precisely how he addresses men of flesh. Anyone denying that is not defending sola Scriptura, they are defending their system.

 

[Marooncat79]

Here we have the unstated claim the things must mean all the things. Nonsense. The context clearly teaches the natural man cannot understand the spiritual solid food things, but men of flesh can understand spiritual milk

Where does it teach that

 

[JonC]

Unbelievable that i am reading this from Van

It is a blatantly false claim that "the things" refers to "all the things!" It could mean "all the things" or could refer to some of the things. Thus the least God is saying is "some of the things.

So now all does not mean all

Consider all of the times that person has said that all always means all

Not to mention that he has rewritten probably over 20-30 verses of the NT is his own and better translation to prove otherwise

Go ahead man! Fire away

It depends on what spiritual things you mean.

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

Was what may be known about God to men who suppress the truth really made plain to them by God? Yes.

Did these men suppress the truth by their wickedness? Again, yes.

I guess the question would be whether "what may be known about God" are "spiritual things". I would say they are, but they are the things revealed to all men via Creation itself.

 

[JonC]

Anyone denying that is not defending sola Scriptura, they are defending their system.

What do you believe is the plain meaning of "it is not good to punish the innocent", "one justifying the wicked and clearing the just are alike an abomination to God", and "God does not abandon the faithful"?

How about “Repent and turn away from all your offenses, so that wrongdoing does not become a stumbling block to you. Hurl away from you all your offenses which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why should you die" or "I take no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord God. “Therefore, repent and live!”

Or "Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression".

What is the plain meaning of "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin"?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

What do you believe is the plain meaning of "it is not good to punish the innocent", "one justifying the wicked and clearing the just are alike an abomination to God", and "God does not abandon the faithful"?

I think these verses show the extreme danger of bouncing up and down on a single text as if it were a trampoline.
If we take the first verse at its plain meaning it would show that God does not obey His own Scriptures, since we also read, 'Yet is pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief,' and the Lord Jesus Himself supported His Father's decision: "Nevertheless, not My will but Yours be done."
Likewise, the Lord Jesus cried out, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" Therefore it is evident that God did indeed abandon the faithful Christ, albeit only temporarily.

Now we can do one of two things. Firstly, we can try to turn the meanings of the Scriptures to make them mean something different to what they so obviously do; or secondly, compare Scripture with Scripture in a diligent manner, which will enable us to sort the matter out.

 

[Marooncat79]

The deflection and absurdity defense. They cannot defend their additions to scripture to pour their dark ages doctrine into the text.

I continue to pray for you

 

[Van]

Van, you are smuggling a universal meaning into the text that Paul himself does not write. The verse does not say “all the things of the Spirit of God,” and it certainly does not say “any of the things.” You are inserting a scope that is not in the passage.

The context makes the distinction clear. Paul speaks of solid food and milk. The natural man cannot receive the solid‑food things, the deep things of God revealed to the mature. But Paul also says he spoke to the Corinthians as men of flesh, and he did so by giving them milk, not solid food. That means there are spiritual things that can be received in milk form by those who are not spiritual.

Your reply tries to avoid this by saying Paul was speaking to believers in chapter 3. But the issue is not who he was speaking to, the issue is how he was speaking. And Paul explicitly says he spoke to them as men of flesh, which is the very category you claim cannot receive anything spiritual. Yet Paul says they received milk.

So your position requires three additions to Scripture:

1. That “the things” means “all the things.”
2. That the milk/solid‑food distinction does not apply.
3. That speaking to believers somehow changes the category of speech Paul himself identifies.

None of those additions come from the text. Paul’s own distinction stands: the natural man cannot receive the solid‑food things, but spiritual truth in milk form is precisely how he addresses men of flesh. Anyone denying that is not defending sola Scriptura, they are defending their system.

Anthony, you just smuggled my position into your position. But to what purpose?

 

[Van]

Where does it teach that

Yet another deflection question, avoiding any stated position. Here, the unstated claim from the dark ages is that "the things" must mean all the things. Nonsense. The context clearly teaches the natural man cannot understand the spiritual solid food things, but men of flesh can understand spiritual milk 1 Cor 3:1-3. That is why Paul spoke to "men of flesh" using spiritual milk.

 

[Van]

Snip

I guess the question would be whether "what may be known about God" are "spiritual things". I would say they are, but they are the things revealed to all men via Creation itself.

God is a spiritual being, therefore to understand the "invisible attributes of God" is to understand some spiritual things. Romans 1:20 Therefore, when Paul says the natural man cannot understand "the things of the Spirit of God" he is referring to "the spiritual solid food (meat) things," rather than all things. Only someone arguing against the obvious would deny this obvious truth.

 

[Van]

I continue to pray for you

The deflection defense. They cannot defend their additions to scripture to pour their dark ages doctrine into the text, so they change the subject and imply an ad homenim.

Spiritual Solid Foods are the things of the Spirit of God that the natural, non-indwelt person, cannot understand. Even when first indwelt it takes a little time and spiritual growth in order to understand spiritual solid food. That is why the "infants in Christ" could not yet understand spiritual solid food. See 1 Corinthians 3:1-3.

 

[JD731]

Van, thank you for your thoughts. My point has been that we should neither expand the text nor shrink it. The “least the words are saying” must still include everything the words actually say, and we must let the rest of Scripture speak to the question of how God overcomes the natural man’s inability.

On 1 Corinthians 2:14, the verse says the natural man cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God as natural. That is the plain statement. The verse does not list exceptions such as “spiritual milk,” nor does it say that the natural man can understand some spiritual things but not others. That distinction is not in the text. Paul’s point in chapter 3 is not that the unregenerate can understand spiritual milk, but that the regenerate Corinthians were still carnal and therefore not ready for solid food. He is speaking to believers, not to the natural man of 2:14.

As for “opening the heart,” Acts 16:14 does not say that Paul merely explained something more clearly. It says, “Whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.” The least the words are saying is that God acted upon her heart so that she responded. That is more than explanation. It is divine initiative.

On James 2:5, the text says God has chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith. The question is whether James is describing a decree from eternity or the kind of people God delights to honor. The context is about partiality in the assembly, not about eternal election. Other passages speak to the order of salvation, such as “whosoever believeth” in John 3:16 and “through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth” in 2 Thessalonians 2:13. Those verses show that faith and love matter in God’s choosing. That is why I read James 2:5 as descriptive, not decretal.

My aim is simply to let all the verses speak. The natural man cannot understand spiritual truth on his own, but God can confront him, convict him, give light, and open his heart. That is the biblical sequence.

Yours in Him,

Tony

I think one of the key points in the text is a contrast between the simple gospel of Christ which requires no study or brilliance. It requires hearing and believing. Even a child can understand the preaching of the gospel and be saved from the penalty of his sins. Not so with the "mysteries" which he had been given and taught by a divine teacher, the mysteries of God that is revealed to him along with those who believe. Every man world wide in the OT era was a natural man meaning that he did not have the indwelling Spirit of Christ that all believers in his death burial and resurrection receive the moment they believe the gospel.

The evidence that Paul is telling the truth about it is the fact that many right here on this forum do not understand the mysteries that Paul explains in his various letters. The apostles had been made stewards of those mysteries and they were faithful to make them known. They are rejected by most of the NT church in these last days.

1 Cor 4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.
2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.
3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.
4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.

Paul was one of the greatest scholars of the Law and he said he did not know anything about the mysteries.

1 Cor 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. That is the gospel.

6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

Logic and reason says if you do not have the Spirit you cannot know the mysteries of the faith and the best one can do in that case is to deny there are such things as mysteries of this age and follow the reasoning of the men who develops grand systematic theologies from their own imaginations.

Paul said he understood all mysteries.
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.


51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

The second coming of Christ to establish his earthly kingdom is detailed in the OT and is not a mystery so this is not it.

 

[JonC]

God is a spiritual being, therefore to understand the "invisible attributes of God" is to understand some spiritual things. Romans 1:20 Therefore, when Paul says the natural man cannot understand "the things of the Spirit of God" he is referring to "the spiritual solid food (meat) things," rather than all things. Only someone arguing against the obvious would deny this obvious truth.

I agree. Romans 1:18-23 makes this very clear.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and they exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible mankind, of birds, four-footed animals, and crawling creatures.


Those you are arguing against, @Van , are men who claim to be wise but have become fools, have exchanging the revelation of God in His own Word for a theology made in their own images.