On his website, Arminian Perspectives, Ben Henshaw has a questions page at which he answers questions about Arminianism and Calvinism that visitors to his site pose in the comment section of the page. Here is a question drawn from the comments of a man named Gene (“Now Dimly”) followed by Ben’s answer:
Question Part 1: I listened to a sermon on depravity and 1 Cor 2:14 was one of the texts used to show the need for regeneration to precede faith.
“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.”
The logic is that since we can’t understand spiritual things then we can’t believe I suppose.
Answer Part 1: Actually, that is another lousy proof text for inability to believe the gospel. Paul is actually talking about immature Christians in that passage, and not unbelievers (1 Cor. 3:1). They are “infants in Christ” and not unbelievers. Here is a good post that addresses this passage as well:
It is a debate, but 1 Cor. 2 comes up in the debate as a proof text for needing the indwelling Spirit in order to believe the gospel, which is plainly unscriptural since the Spirit is received by faith (Gal. 3:2, 5, 14).
The part about 1 Cor. 2 comes up pretty early in the post.
Question Part 2: I read this last post and some of the comments on the second rebuttal so far. I think Dominic had a pretty weak argument and yours seemed to be right on as I compared it all with the contexts involved. But I’m still hung up on 1 Cor 2:14 and 1 Cor 3:1 since Paul uses two different words in Greek for “natural person” and “people of the flesh.” The context of verses 14-16 seems to be immature vs. mature, but I guess it seems hard for me to get away from that old interpretation that Natural=not saved or without the Spirit. How could deeper spiritual truths be foolish to someone who is saved?
And I’m treading lightly in 3:1-4 because of the old “carnal Christian” doctrine (which I believe to be a misinterpretation…this was big when I was in Campus Crusade for Christ 20 years ago–and it didn’t make much sense then–; i.e. people could live however they wanted and still be saved). It’s clear here that Paul speaks of immaturity and not sensual living. I just can’t understand why Paul wouldn’t have used the same term in both places.
Answer Part 2:
You wrote,
The context of verses 14-16 seems to be immature vs. mature, but I guess it seems hard for me to get away from that old interpretation that Natural=not saved or without the Spirit. How could deeper spiritual truths be foolish to someone who is saved?
The context is about believers who are immature because they are not fully submitting to the Spirit. I don’t think this is such an uncommon thing. They have the Spirit within them, but are not yielding to the Spirit as they should, which would bring them to a more spiritually mature state. So in a sense they are acting like men without the Spirit because they are not yielding to the Spirit’s leading. Some translations have it as “unspiritual”, which probably better reflects Paul’s meaning in describing these immature Christians.
And I’m treading lightly in 3:1-4 because of the old “carnal Christian” doctrine (which I believe to be a misinterpretation…this was big when I was in Campus Crusade for Christ 20 years ago–and it didn’t make much sense then–; i.e. people could live however they wanted and still be saved)
This in no way has reference to the horrible carnal Christian doctrine. These Christians are guilty of favoritism, and not the gross sins that are often attributed to “carnal Christians.” In attaching their loyalty to certain Christian teachers above others, they are robbing themselves of what God wants to give them, as if God can only speak to them through their favorite apostle or teacher, etc. This is stunting their growth and hurting the church.
