• 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!

The natural man receives not the things of God

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Who was that someone reading that 6 year old thread? It wasn't me.

I see that I made three posts to that thread, but I assure you I don't remember a thing about it.
A poster was working through the archives and believe it or not,liked one or two of my posts.
This is very close to the post I was looking for, in which a poster denied that supernatural work of God was needed alongside the gospel itself. The person said it is not like a light switch that was off, then gets put on...or words close to that. I will post it when I find it.

Your posts are about what they are in this very post.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
here is a bit more for those who want to learn;
Barclay on natural man - He is the man who lives as if there was nothing beyond physical life and there were no needs other than material needs, whose values are all physical and material. A man like that cannot understand spiritual things.

Chuck Smith on natural man - That is the way you were born, the nature you inherited from Adam. The theologians have a term, "The Adamic nature". It refers to what they term the unregenerate man. This is every man who has not be born again. Jesus said to Nicodemus, "You must be born again, that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit." Paul in another place refers to the natural man as the old man. (Ro 6:6) "knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin" Paul described the characteristics of the natural man in Eph 2:2-3 and Eph 4:17-19. (Chuck Smith Sermon Notes)

Accept (1209)(dechomai = middle voice of a primary verb) means to accept with a deliberate and ready reception that which is offered, receiving it kindly. For example, dechomai conveys the idea of welcoming one as a teacher, a friend, or a guest into one's house. Dechomai pictures the accepting of something or someone with an open arm, mind, and heart, even going beyond normally expected gracious hospitality (e.g., Acts 21:17). The term was often used of welcoming honored guests and meeting their needs with special attention and kindness. The natural man does not "put out the welcome mat" (so to speak-as in Col 4:10, Heb 11:31) for the Word of God (similar to those described in 2Th 2:10-12)! It is notable that dechomai is often associated with positive receptivity to the Word of God - see Acts 7:38, 8:14, 17:11, Eph 6:17, 1Th 1:6, 1Th 2:13, James 1:21.

We see the opposite response by the "supernatural" men (believers) in Thessalonica for "when (they) received (paralambano) the word of God which (they) heard from (Paul, Silas and Timothy - 1Th 1:1), (they accepted(dechomai) it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its w
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Adrian Rogers describes the natural man - He does not have the equipment. You cannot smell music. Your nose may be working very well, but it cannot smell music. It is the spirit and not the soul that receives spiritual knowledge. With your soul you may know about God, but you cannot know God. One may know all about bread and starve to death. Knowledge is learned, but wisdom is given. Knowledge comes by looking around, but wisdom comes by looking up. Knowledge comes by study, but wisdom comes by revelation (and illumination). Knowledge comes to the soul, but wisdom comes to the spirit.

Roy Zuck - Only the saved are able to welcome God's truth. When Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 2:14 that "the man without the Spirit ("psuchikos" = soulish, unsaved man") does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, "he did not mean that an unsaved person is totally incapable of comprehending any of the grammatical data of the Bible. Rather, Paul meant that a non-Christian does not welcome its truth! The Greek word translated "accept" (dechomai) means "welcome." If "receive" were intended, a different Greek word (lambano) would have been used. The verse does not mean that an unsaved person, who is devoid of the Holy Spirit, cannot understand mentally what the Bible is saying; instead it means that he does not welcome its message of redemption to his own heart. [Daniel F. Fuller, "Do We Need the Holy Spirit to Understand the Bible"? Eternity, January 1959, p. 22.] He rejects the message, refusing to appropriate it and act on it. By contrast, people in Berea "received (dechoma) the message with great eagerness" (Acts 17:11), and the Thessalonians "received (dechomai) the Word… with the joy of the Holy Spirit" (1Th 1:6). The statement in 1 Corinthians 2:14 that the things of the Spirit of God are "foolishness" to an unbeliever would indicate that he has some understanding of what the Bible says. Otherwise, if nothing were communicated to him, how could he judge such a communication to be foolish? He could not call something foolishness unless he had some cognitive awareness of it. (The Role of the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics)


Vance Havner - The wise Christian wastes no time trying to explain God’s program to unregenerate men; it would be casting pearls before swine. He might as well try to describe a sunset to a blind man or discuss nuclear physics with a monument in the city park. The natural man cannot receive such things. One might as well try to catch sunbeams with a fishhook as to lay hold of God’s revelation unassisted by the Holy Spirit. Unless one is born of the Spirit and taught by Him, all this is utterly foreign to him. Being a Ph. D. does not help, for in this realm it could mean ‘Phenomenal Dud!’

Illustration of foolishness - Several years ago, there was a massive volcanic explosion in the state of Washington when Mount St. Helens erupted. Sheriff Bill Closner said, “People were in the danger areas around the mountain because they refused to obey roadblocks. The bottom line is that nobody would listen.” As a result, there were needless deaths and injuries. Even though danger was physically imminent, people still refused to obey the regulations. Sin or disobedience always has consequences. If people refused to listen in the midst of dangerous circumstances like the Mount St. Helens eruption, we should not be so shocked at the depravity and stubbornness of men in spiritual matters. (Illustrations for Biblical Preaching: Over 1500 sermon illustrations arranged by topic and indexed exhaustively, Green, Michael P)

A T Robertson on he cannot understand them - He is not able to get a (an experiential) knowledge (ingressive second aorist active infinitive of ginosko). His helpless condition calls for pity in place of impatience on our part, though such a one usually poses as a paragon of wisdom and commiserates the deluded followers of Christ.

Can (not = absolute negation!) (1410)(dunamai) conveys the basic meaning of that which has the inherent ability to do something or accomplish some end. Thus dunamai means to be able to, to be capable of, to be strong enough to do or to have power to do something. It is usually translated able (50x), can (61x and cannot 58x) or could. BDAG says that dunamai means "to possess capability (whether because of personal or external factors) for experiencing or doing something."

Cannot understand - More literally "cannot know (ginosko)" -- Paul's point is not the unregenerate or unsaved man cannot read the Word and in some sense cognitively apprehend it, but that he cannot know the Word in an experiential sense. I think for example of Psalm 19:8 where David writes "The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart." Believers can experience joy in their heart, that a natural man simply does not know! As an aside, how thankful we should be that God's Spirit taking God's Word can produce joy in our innermost being!(cp 1Th 1:6, Gal 5:22-23, Ro 14:17, 15:13, Acts 13:52) We are the most blessed of all people!

Roy Zuck adds that "An unbeliever does not know God's truth experientially. He may grasp portions of it mentally, but he does not discern it spiritually nor experience it personally. Virkler summarizes this point well when he writes: 'Thus unbelievers do not know the full meaning of scriptural teaching, not because that meaning is unavailable to them in the words of the text, but because they refuse to act on and appropriate spiritual truths for their own lives. Furthermore, the psychological results of such refusal make them less and less able (and willing) to comprehend these truths.'" [Henry A. Virkler, Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation ] (The Role of the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics)
 
Last edited:

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Anyone taking the time to work through the materials in posts 56-63 will be hard pressed to attempt to post against the truth as it is outlined by teachers across the theological spectrum because the language will not allow it any other way.
Work through these posts from the link .

Not one man even hints at the idea that a natural man has everything he needs to understand and believe the gospel.
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Anyone taking the time to work through the materials in posts 56-63 will be hard pressed to attempt to post against the truth as it is outlined by teachers across the theological spectrum because the language will not allow it any other way.
Work through these posts from the link .

Not one man even hints at the idea that a natural man has everything he needs to understand and believe the gospel.
Argumentum ad populum
and
Appeal to authority.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 

SovereignGrace

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
But people who are unspiritual...CEB
But a person without the Spirit...CSB
But the natural [unbelieving] man...AMP
The natural person...ESV
Whoever does not have the Spirit...GNT
But the unbeliever...HCSB
A person who isn't spiritual...ISV
But the man who isn't a Christian...TLB
The unspiritual self...MSG
But a natural man...NASB(has footnote saying an unspiritual)
A person without the Spirit...NIV
But people who aren't spiritual...NLT(footnote saying who don't have the Spirit)

So, this is not about worldly versus Godly wisdom, but the lost person who does not accept the things of the Spirit of God because they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually appraised.
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
We will never be able to agree on this because we do not agree on the context of that passage. It is not a comparison between the lost and saved, regenerate, and unregenerate, the natural man and the spiritual man.

It is a comparison of choosing worldly wisdom and godly wisdom. It inserts no inability but the choice of men.

Absolutely no truth in this post.

Only because you can't see it.
MB

Ok, "We will never be able to agree" is probably true.
 

SovereignGrace

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
From Adam Clarke’s commentary on 1 Corinthians 2:14...


But the natural man - Ψυχικος, 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 ψυχη, which we often translate soul, means the lower and sensitive part of man, in opposition to νους, 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 ψυχικος, or animal man, is opposed to the πνευματικος, 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, 1 Corinthians 3:1; 1 Corinthians 9:11; and particularly in 1 Corinthians 2:15; 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.



1 Corinthians 2 Commentary - Adam Clarke Commentary
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I do not know about all that ITL, but I do know the material in posts 56-63 is exceedingly clear.
What's clear is the spiritual things discussed in 1 Cor. 2 that the natural man cannot understand are the "deeper things of the Spirit" and the "hidden wisdom of God". That can be seen by merely reading the Bible. It's not necessary to read reams and reams of commentary from people with a theological agenda.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 

Reformed

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
But I do reject the aspects of Calvinism that are anti-Baptistic (Covenant Theology - depending on degree, infant Baptism, elder leadership, etc).

Jon,

How can you say elder leadership and covenant theology are anti-Baptistic when Baptists trace their origins before Darbyism and elder leadership among Baptists is centuries old? Baptists are not a monolithic group. Of course, every Baptist faction can say of another faction that they are anti-Baptistic but I am not sure that gets us anywhere.

On infant baptism we are agreed. That has always been a Baptist distinctive that all Baptist factions agree on...I think.


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Jon,

How can you say elder leadership and covenant theology are anti-Baptistic when Baptists trace their origins before Darbyism and elder leadership among Baptists is centuries old? Baptists are not a monolithic group. Of course, every Baptist faction can say of another faction that they are anti-Baptistic but I am not sure that gets us anywhere.

On infant baptism we are agreed. That has always been a Baptist distinctive that all Baptist factions agree on...I think.


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
There are different views regarding the origins of the Baptist distinctive.

Elder leadership is one issue I had not considered until @TCassidy made the statement that Baptists are congregational while elders came from Presbyterian governance.

I have always linked (based on historical confessions) baptists with Anabaptists. BUT as they are also inseparably linked with the Reformers this is not a hill I would choose to hold.

I suspect we would also agree that baptists reject a church-state and external church governance as well.
 

Reformed

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
There are different views regarding the origins of the Baptist distinctive.

Elder leadership is one issue I had not considered until @TCassidy made the statement that Baptists are congregational while elders came from Presbyterian governance.

I have always linked (based on historical confessions) baptists with Anabaptists. BUT as they are also inseparably linked with the Reformers this is not a hill I would choose to hold.

I suspect we would also agree that baptists reject a church-state and external church governance as well.

If by a church-state you mean a form of theonomy, I agree. I also reject Presbyterian ecclesiology (external church governance).

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
What's clear is the spiritual things discussed in 1 Cor. 2 that the natural man cannot understand are the "deeper things of the Spirit" and the "hidden wisdom of God". That can be seen by merely reading the Bible. It's not necessary to read reams and reams of commentary from people with a theological agenda.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
it does not say the natural man cannot understand the deeper things...it says plainly the "things"
you do not interact with all the quotes because you really have no answer except to close your eyes and repeat your theory.
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
it does not say the natural man cannot understand the deeper things...it says plainly the "things"

Verse 10
But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.

you really have no answer except to close your eyes and repeat your theory.

I guess I have to keep repeating it because you keep denying the plain reading of scripture. The things referred to are called "the deep things" the "wisdom of God in a mystery", and "the hidden wisdom". In verse 14, which Calvinists rip out of context, it only says "things", but from prior verses we know these are the deep things and the hidden wisdom of God.

The natural man, lacking the Holy Spirit, can not comprehend these deep things. But they can understand the Gospel.





Sent from my Pixel 2 XL
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Verse 10
But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.



I guess I have to keep repeating it because you keep denying the plain reading of scripture. The things referred to are called "the deep things" the "wisdom of God in a mystery", and "the hidden wisdom". In verse 14, which Calvinists rip out of context, it only says "things", but from prior verses we know these are the deep things and the hidden wisdom of God.

The natural man, lacking the Holy Spirit, can not comprehend these deep things. But they can understand the Gospel.





Sent from my Pixel 2 XL
Barclay - But God revealed it through his Spirit, for the Spirit explores all things, even the deep things of God.


the plain reading is ALL THINGS, even the deep things...but you can make believe it does not say it if you like,
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Barclay - But God revealed it through his Spirit, for the Spirit explores all things, even the deep things of God.


the plain reading is ALL THINGS, even the deep things...but you can make believe it does not say it if you like,

You can ascribe beliefs that I don't hold, if you want, BUT EVERYONE CAN SEE YOU ARE DOING SO.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You can ascribe beliefs that I don't hold, if you want, BUT EVERYONE CAN SEE YOU ARE DOING SO.
I am not ascribing anything. I am reading your posts .
You do not want to read the posts56-63.
You insist on ignoring the text.
ITL it says all things.even the deep things.
You can invent other ideas if you want but no one can take you seriously if you do.
 
Top