The Natural man

[Yeshua1]

If you will, please describe what would be a carnal spirit (a spirit "set on the flesh").

A Christian who is committing sin by giving in to what their flesh demands them to be doing!

 

[JonC]

A Christian who is committing sin by giving in to what their flesh demands them to be doing!

Some sins seem to be a mark of an unbeliever (homosexual lifestyle, murderous, haughty spirit, unforgiving spirit, drunkard, ect).

But some seem to be stumbling (an event).

If I drink too much that is a sin. But if I keep on drinking too much I am a drunkard.

If you sin against me I may at first seek retaliation (a sin). If neither of us forgives the other then we are mastered by sin (we have an "unforgiving" spirit).

If I shoplift from Walmart I have sinned. If this us normal for me I am a thief (mastered by sin).

The sins are the same (between the lost and the saved). The difference is the Christian overcomes the sin. God disciplines those who are His own.

 

[Yeshua1]

Some sins seem to be a mark of an unbeliever (homosexual lifestyle, murderous, haughty spirit, unforgiving spirit, drunkard, ect).

But some seem to be stumbling (an event).

If I drink too much that is a sin. But if I keep on drinking too much I am a drunkard.

If you sin against me I may at first seek retaliation (a sin). If neither of us forgives the other then we are mastered by sin (we have an "unforgiving" spirit).

If I shoplift from Walmart I have sinned. If this us normal for me I am a thief (mastered by sin).

The sins are the same (between the lost and the saved). The difference is the Christian overcomes the sin. God disciplines those who are His own.

The real saved person will eventually agree with God that they are doing sin, and repent and confess of it, while the ,ere professor has no change in lifestyle or behavior!

 

[The Archangel]

The "we" who share in having the mind of Christ, 1 Corinthians 2:16, are the "I," the Aoostle Paul and the "brethren" who Paul calls carnal in 1 Corinthians 3:1-2.

I have already addressed this here:

The flaw in your statement "But Paul is addressing the church" is that you assume everyone in the church at Corinth is actually a believer. We know that people in churches do, in fact, prove themselves to be otherwise. In Acts, Paul describes the "wolves" to the Ephesian elders--and those wolves come from inside the church, not from the outside. Anyone would be hard pressed to say the "wolves" are believers.

This is not true. "Carnal" is an old English translation of ψυχικός and ψυχικός means "unspiritual" or "worldly." It can mean "natural," but Paul's usage (four times in 1 Corinthians) shows that natural is meant only when talking about the body (as he discusses it 1 Cor 15).

The context of the pericope proves your argument to be incorrect. Here is the text:

[6] Yet 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. [7] But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. [8] None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. [9] But, 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”—

[10] these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. [11] For 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. [12] Now 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. [13] And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

[14] The 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. [15] The 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. (1 Corinthians 2:6–16 ESV)​

In v. 10, Paul says the wisdom of God is revealed through the Spirit. So, the things of God cannot be known without the inward illumination of the Holy Spirit. I doubt we'd disagree. Then, he contrasts the spirit of the world with the Spirit of God. His point is that believers have the Spirit of God with the express reason that we (believers) may understand the things of God. Paul goes on to say the transmission of the things of God happens not by human wisdom, but by the Spirit--"interpreting truths to those who are spiritual." Paul is clear here in his implication: If you do not have the Spirit of God, you have no real hope of understanding (or rightly understanding) the things of God. Then, what he made implicit in v. 13 he makes explicit in v. 14: The "natural" person does not--and cannot--accept the things of God.

So, Paul--here--is not talking about a believer; he is discussing an unbeliever. But, he is discussing believers and unbelievers in contrast--because of what is coming up in chapter 3. In chapter 2 he is clear: The "natural" man is an unbeliever because he "does not accept" and "is not able to understand" the things of God. Paul has already told us that we are able to understand the things of God if we have the Spirit. But with the natural man, there is no option. Understanding is not even available to the natural man, therefore he or she is an unbeliever.

Now, in chapter 3, Paul does equate the believers with being infants, not unbelievers. Here is the pertinent text:

[1] But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. [2] I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, [3] for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way? [4] For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human? (1 Corinthians 3:1–4 ESV)​

Notice that Paul is using "as," as in "I could not address you as spiritual people." In English when "like" or "as" is used it is called simile. It is a linguistic tool of comparison. So, Paul is comparing the "Brothers" (so, believers) in the church of Corinth as "people of the flesh" (so, non-believers). However... He does put the comparison defining clause "as infants in Christ" to define "people of the flesh." Now, we know from Paul's use of "brothers" that he is intending to address believers. What he says to them is important: They are certainly not acting like believers.

In other words, the Corinthian believers were fed "milk" by Paul when he was with them and they have not grown past being spiritual infants. It would seem Paul expected them to grow into "solid food," but they haven't done so. Instead of behaving like believers, they are behaving in a human way.

To conclude, then, Paul knows nothing of the so-called "carnal" Christian as described by so many (because the natural man does not and cannot understand the things of God). What he does in chapter 3 is to compare the believers to non-believers, which is to call into question their Christianity--though he does not discount their belief (calling them infants). The Corinthian believers are not showing the fruit of repentance and faith. Paul does not consider it proper or normal for Christians to remain "infants," probably because infant Christians look like unbelievers. The only way to know the difference is that infant Christians (because of the work of the Spirit) grow into mature Christians. And... only time will tell.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

The real saved person will eventually agree with God that they are doing sin, and repent and confess of it, while the ,ere professor has no change in lifestyle or behavior!

How do you interact with professing Christians who live according to the flesh (unforgiving, slanderous, abusive, immoral, violent, ect.)?

 

[Yeshua1]

How do you interact with professing Christians who live according to the flesh (unforgiving, slanderous, abusive, immoral, violent, ect.)?

Paul stated to us to warn them, and if they refuse to do the right thing, treat them as if really lost until they come back!

 

[JonC]

Paul stated to us to warn them, and if they refuse to do the right thing, treat them as if really lost until they come back!

Apply this to a common occurance on the BB -

M is offended by A. A explains M misunderstood and apologizes. M holds a grudge and will not forgive the perceived wrong.

M obviously has an unforgiving spirit. Do we treat M as if M is not saved?

It is easy to apply to extreme cases. Perhaps it is less easy with more common sin.

 

[Yeshua1]

Apply this to a common occurance on the BB -

M is offended by A. A explains M misunderstood and apologizes. M holds a grudge and will not forgive the perceived wrong.

M obviously has an unforgiving spirit. Do we treat M as if M is not saved?

It is easy to apply to extreme cases. Perhaps it is less easy with more common sin.

They should be approached by a moderator and informed of their un christlike spirit, but done in a private message!

 

[JonC]

They should be approached by a moderator and informed of their un christlike spirit, but done in a private message!

I am speaking in general (when it occurs I am sure it is handled that way).

What I am trying to do is move from hypotheticals that are extreme (fornication, murder, theft, ect.) to something we encounter more often in Christian communities.

Do you believe a Christian who "walks in darkness" (e.g. a disobedient, unforgiving spirit; a slanderor; a gossip, ect.). should enjoy the fellowship of Christians who are trying to be obedient to God?

 

[37818]

I have already addressed this here:

Referring to post #32.
Which I had answered with a "no" showing that the "we" having "the mind of Christ" in 1 Corinthians 2:16, were the very "brethren" in 1 Corinthians 3:1-2. Which you here explicitly deny are the saved. You fail to hear and understand the context. 1 Corinthians 2:16 - 1 Corinthians 3:1-5, ". . . ye believed, . . ."

Furthermore . . . 1 Corinthians 3:23, ". . . And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's. . . ."

 

[Yeshua1]

I am speaking in general (when it occurs I am sure it is handled that way).

What I am trying to do is move from hypotheticals that are extreme (fornication, murder, theft, ect.) to something we encounter more often in Christian communities.

Do you believe a Christian who "walks in darkness" (e.g. a disobedient, unforgiving spirit; a slanderor; a gossip, ect.). should enjoy the fellowship of Christians who are trying to be obedient to God?

No, do you?

 

[JonC]

No, do you?

I do not. I believe we judge the fruit and determine from what spirit it comes.

 

[The Archangel]

Referring to post #32.
Which I had answered with a "no" showing that the "we" having "the mind of Christ" in 1 Corinthians 2:16, were the very "brethren" in 1 Corinthians 3:1-2. Which you here explicitly deny are the saved. You fail to hear and understand the context. 1 Corinthians 2:16 - 1 Corinthians 3:1-5, ". . . ye believed, . . ."

Furthermore . . . 1 Corinthians 3:23, ". . . And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's. . . ."

You've shared your... opinion... but you haven't demonstrated in any real way why your opinion is correct and based on the text. You may have alluded to it, but you have yet to delve into the details. So, why do you think that you're right? And... why do you think I'm wrong.

The Archangel

 

[Iconoclast]

They should be approached by a moderator and informed of their un christlike spirit, but done in a private message!

What if a moderator is the person who is a lying slandering, gossip?
Is it unkind for someone to observe and identify the ungodly actions,that are not repented of?
In 1cor5:1-13 Paul commented on people who were "called a brother".
He does not say they were a brother, as the list of sinful conduct was ongoing, and not repented of.
He was suggesting they should be removed before their ungodly conduct spread to others.
No where does Paul suggest identifying their sin was unkind or unchristian.
The offending person will proclaim they are righteous. For example a liar will say, I never lie.
When lies are observed he will blame those who observe such a lie.
Yes Y1, it takes some work to sort out unsaved natural men who live in the realm of sin, from real Christian's who battle against remaining sin.
We have sadly seen Pastors fall into sin and apostasy.
When someone first notices the sin, that pastor will try and slander the person who identifies the sinful departure from truth.

 

[37818]

You've shared your... opinion... but you haven't demonstrated in any real way why your opinion is correct and based on the text. You may have alluded to it, but you have yet to delve into the details. So, why do you think that you're right? And... why do you think I'm wrong.

The Archangel

I have given explicitly why I think my understanding is right. You fail hear it. And I am evidently not understanding your view as to why you seem to not see my view.

Do we agree that the "natural man" in 1 Corinthians 2:14 is not yet a belever?

In summary, from 1 Corinthians 2:16 - 1 Corinthians 3:1-23, ". . . we have the mind of Christ. And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. [ 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. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? . . . ye are Christ's . . ."

Now that milk are the things of God.

Reason with me.

 

[Yeshua1]

I do not. I believe we judge the fruit and determine from what spirit it comes.

we can become spirited and even heated in our discussions here, but no need to go "over the line"

 

[Yeshua1]

What if a moderator is the person who is a lying slandering, gossip?
Is it unkind for someone to observe and identify the ungodly actions,that are not repented of?
In 1cor5:1-13 Paul commented on people who were "called a brother".
He does not say they were a brother, as the list of sinful conduct was ongoing, and not repented of.
He was suggesting they should be removed before their ungodly conduct spread to others.
No where does Paul suggest identifying their sin was unkind or unchristian.
The offending person will proclaim they are righteous. For example a liar will say, I never lie.
When lies are observed he will blame those who observe such a lie.
Yes Y1, it takes some work to sort out unsaved natural men who live in the realm of sin, from real Christian's who battle against remaining sin.
We have sadly seen Pastors fall into sin and apostasy.
When someone first notices the sin, that pastor will try and slander the person who identifies the sinful departure from truth.

If this would be a Moderator, then up to whoever is over them !

 

[Yeshua1]

I have given explicitly why I think my understanding is right. You fail hear it. And I am evidently not understanding your view as to why you seem to not see my view.

Do we agree that the "natural man" in 1 Corinthians 2:14 is not yet a belever?

In summary, from 1 Corinthians 2:16 - 1 Corinthians 3:1-23, ". . . we have the mind of Christ. And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. [ 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. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? . . . ye are Christ's . . ."

Now that milk are the things of God.

Reason with me.

Paul is addressing them as those who are saved, but very immature, and acting as if they are not even saved, and wants them to grow up!

 

[JonC]

we can become spirited and even heated in our discussions here, but no need to go "over the line"

What I see a lot is more than heat. I see Calvinists hostile to non-Calvinists and vise versa. I am SBC and we have had heated debates, but we have also had hateful arguments over various topics.

It is not up to us to correct "Another's servant". But I have seen gossip tolerated if it is against Christians who hold a certain position (I am thinking of those critical of men like John Piper because if his position regarding sign gifts).

Men do go over the line because we are human. But what then? What if disobedience is the mark of a man?

 

[JonC]

If this would be a Moderator, then up to whoever is over them !

I am not speaking of specific issues, Yeshua1. There are no issues between the moderators or staff.

I am saying that some sins are tolerated and even fostered with online forums. There is a greater "unforgiving spirit", "haughtiness", ect when God has given commands on how Christians are to interact.

Online forums seem to be a weakness that can become sin for some (particularly the more immature). And unChristian behavior is often tolerated. This is wrong.

My question is are we looking out for our weaker brother?

If online forums produce an evil spirit in the member (unforgiving spirit, slanderous, strife, ect.) and is a cause for their sin then to what extent are we sinning by engaging them (by contributing to their sin)?

My personal solution is to put these people on ignore when possible. It is difficult here as I am on staff, but on other forums I ignore people who are too immature to have an online presence. That way I am not guilty of joining in their sin.

The "natural man" is a cross we bear, the part of us we have to die to.