Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You are going to continue to assert this despite the full counsel of Scripture that I have provided. This does not change the plain reading of the passage in its proper context.
This is the usual response from the anti-Calvinist or the open theist, both of which applies in your case, refusing to consider what all of Holy Writ has to say on the matter, preferring to cherry pick verses to accommodate one's own muzegesis, which has been your long-established methodology.
The didactic in 1 Cor. 2:14 is in direct accordance with the full counsel of Scripture, and includes a proper contextual understanding concerning Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; Eph, 2:2; Eph. 2:4-5; Titus 3:5; John 3:19; Rom. 3:10-12; 5:6; 6:16-20; Eph. 2:1,3. Despite this, you are adamantly want the passage to mean something other than it actually teaches to escape the implications therein. You do this by ignoring Paul's method of shaming the Corinthians for their behavior (you Corinthians are acting like children so I will treat you as children). As has been discussed, Paul treats them as children because they are acting like children, not because they are actually unregenerate. The context of 1 Cor 2 presents Paul's coming to declare the testimony of God as a foundation for what is to come in Paul's lament over the Corinthians in 1 Cor 3. These are the plain facts of the matter, despite your contortions to twist 1 Cor 2:14 to mean something other than what it plainly teaches. Your view stands in direct contradiction to the full counsel of Scripture concerning the state of the unregenerate so you (not I) are imposing your view upon Scripture. I have provided enough evidence from Scripture that teaches the state of the lost that you dismiss as spam, without meeting any burden to prove otherwise. That is not an argument, only an assertion. I won't do the heavy lifting for you but am happy to defend each and every instance wherein Scripture makes clear the moral inability of the unregenerate:
Spoiler
Yes he does. Paul speaks to them as carnal, not in the sense as some popular evangelicalism misuses the term and probably the root of your misunderstandings. The Corinthians' problem was that they were living as though they were nothing but flesh (carnal). They were still living at the human level of life. They had never gotten beyond the affairs and material things of this life. They acted as though this world was all there was.
I am not alone in the interpretation here, for example, on this passage Gordon D. Fee observes,
"One cannot be a Christian and be devoid of [the] Spirit. On the other hand, the Corinthians are involved in a lot of unchristian behavior; in that sense they are 'unspiritual,' not because they lack the Spirit but because they are thinking and living just like those who do."
Some faults had crept in among the Corinthians in the administration of the Supper, discipline and propriety of conduct had very much declined: despising the simplicity of the gospel, they had given themselves up to liturgical show and pomp (as do the Romanists today); and in consequence of the ambition of their ministers, they were split into various parties. Notwithstanding this, however, inasmuch as they retained fundamental doctrine: as the one God was adored among them, and was invoked in the name of Christ: as they placed their dependence for salvation upon Christ, and, had a ministry not altogether corrupted: there was, I believe Scripture teaches on these accounts, a Church still existing among them.
In 1 Cor 3 Paul begins to apply to the Corinthians themselves, that he had said respecting carnal persons, that they may understand that the fault was their own—that the doctrine of the Cross had not more wonder for them. In the mercantile minds of the Corinthians there was too much confidence and arrogance still lingering, so that it was not without much ado and great difficulty that they could bring themselves to embrace the simplicity of the gospel. Hence it was that undervaluing that Paul, and the divine efficacy of his preaching, they were more prepared to listen to those teachers that were subtle and showy, yet all the while destitute of the Spirit.
Hence, with the view of beating down so much the better the Corinthians' insolence, as though they were unregenerate, Paul declares that they belong to the company of those who, stupefied by carnal sense, are not prepared to receive the spiritual wisdom of God. It is clear that Paul softens the harshness of his reproach by calling them brethren, but at the same time he brings it forward expressly as a matter of reproach against them concerning the foundations (see 1 Cor 2), that their minds were suffocated with the darkness of the flesh to such a degree that it formed a hindrance to his preaching among them. Just imagine what sort of sound judgment then must they have, when they are not fit and prepared as yet even for hearing! Paul does not mean, however, that they were altogether carnal, so as to have not one spark of the Spirit of God—but that they had still greatly too much of carnal sense, so that the flesh prevailed over the Spirit, and did as it were drown out His light. Hence, although they were not altogether destitute of grace, yet, as they had more of the flesh than of the Spirit, they are on that account termed carnal. This sufficiently appears from what Paul immediately adds—that they were babes in Christ; for they would not have been babes had they not been begotten, and that begetting is from the Spirit of God. Hence, my continued position that Paul treats them as though they were unregenerate, but not actually unregenerate in his often deployed rhetorical manner.
Nothing I have written above implies a stagnant, so called by confused evangelicals "carnal Christian." That the church in Corinth was carnal (as understood from Scripture) is clear from the scriptures. Paul was there for this very reason, to snap them out of it, lest they become a huge stumbling block to others in the region.
The Bible says several things about the flesh.
1. The flesh has no good thing about it; it is opposed to doing good (Rom. 7:18).
2. The man who is in the flesh is under the influence of the flesh and cannot please God (Rom. 8:8).
3. The man who has the spirit of Christ is removed from being in and under the influence of the flesh. Such a man is said to be a transformed man, a new man—even a new creation (Rom. 8:9; Rom. 12:2; 2 Cor. 5:17; Ephes. 4:22-24).
4. The regenerate man is strongly urged to walk "in the spirit." Such a man is said to be a spiritual believer (Gal. 5:16-26).
From Romans 8:5 we see that Paul introduces this difference between the flesh and the Spirit, not only to confirm, by an argument derived from what is of an opposite character, what Paul has mentioned beforehand—that the grace of Christ belongs to none but to those who, having been regenerated by the Spirit, strive after purity—but also to relieve the faithful with a seasonable consolation, lest being aware of many failings, they should fall into despair. For as Paul had exempted none from the curse, save those who lead a spiritual life, Paul might seem to cut off from all mortals the hope of salvation. After all, who in this world can be found adorned with so much angelic purity so as to be wholly freed from the flesh? It was therefore necessary for Paul to define what it is to be in the flesh, and to walk after the flesh.
Once you come to grips with the above, the remainder of your misunderstandings behind your objections evaporate.
AMR
Last edited:
