Salvation Not Possible Without Works

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Cassian

Senior Member
Oct 12, 2013
1,960
7
0
Red herring.

Possess = to make the owner of; to own.

The Holy Spirit is a deposit to me, guaranteeing the inheritance to me.

Your contra-NT word contortions serve only to show that you do not know

or understand the NT well enough to represent it correctly.

Your preach a false, twice-condemned gospel.
I think you have a very long way to go to understand what is a convenant. The NT is diametrically opposed to such a view as faith without works. We were created specifically to work with God in His creation. The works and working through faith in this sinful world is a test of our faith. We are to mature, to grow in faith, to become transformed into being Christ like through love and obedience. We were created to be a prophet, priest and king with God in this world. We are to do the same thing Adam was to do, but failed because He wanted to do it alone being deceived by Satan. Now Satan has you deceived that God is going to do all the works for you, you don't need to do a thing, just like Satan himself.

You will give an account of your works, not your faith. No works means you had no faith. Read the story of the Last Judgement in Matt 25:31-46.

He is not going to save you without the works, if so, He might just as well save all human kind, since that is what He desires. Faith without works is the same as Satan.
 

Elin

Banned
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
I think you have a very long way to go to understand what is a convenant.
Are you sure about that?

The new covenant is unilateral, not bilateral.

The NT is diametrically opposed to such a view as faith without works.
Red herring.

So am I.

You don't know he difference between the obedience produced by faith,

and an obedience necessary to receive the free gift of salvation, which obedience the NT denies.

You do not know or understand the Scriptures well enough to represent them correctly.

You preach a false, twice-condemned gospel.
 
A

Alligator

Guest
Red herring.

Possess = to make the owner of; to own.

The Holy Spirit is a deposit to me, guaranteeing the inheritance to me.

Your contra-NT word contortions serve only to show that you do not know

or understand the NT well enough to represent it correctly.

Your preach a false, twice-condemned gospel.
i have read some of your posts and qiite frankly, you are the one who doesn't seem to understand
 

Cassian

Senior Member
Oct 12, 2013
1,960
7
0
Are you sure about that?
Positive. the errant "faith only" concept was originated in the Reformation, 1500 years after the Gospel was given.

The new covenant is unilateral, not bilateral.
Saying so is one thing, can you show any evidence that it is unilateral.


Red herring.
So am I.

You don't know he difference between the obedience produced by faith,

and an obedience necessary to receive the free gift of salvation, which obedience the NT denies.
must be you are quite confused, because that is precisely what I have been stating. That is the difference between "law of works" and "the law of faith".

You do not know or understand the Scriptures well enough to represent them correctly.
You make these grand assertions but how about the evidence?

You preach a false, twice-condemned gospel.
another assertion, no evidence, as yet.
 

Elin

Banned
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
Positive. the errant "faith only" concept was originated in the Reformation, 1500 years after the Gospel was given.
Wrong.

Abraham and Paul predate the Reformation by a year or two
(2Tim 1:9; Tit 3:5; Ro 4:2-3).

Saying so is one thing, can you show any evidence that it is unilateral.
Under the new covenant, righteousness/justification is by faith alone, no good deeds involved
as they were in the old covenant ("As for me," Ge 17:4; "As for you," Ge 17:9).
In the new covenant, righteousness/justification is a free gift (Ro 5:17, 19, 3:24).

Unilateral, by faith alone, no good deeds involved on the part of the recipient are found in:

Heb 8:10, 12, 11:7; Ro 1:17, 3:21-22, 24, 4:5, 13, 9:30-32, 10:6; Gal 2:16; Eph 2:8-9; Php 3:9.

must be you are quite confused, because that is precisely what I have been stating.
That is the difference between "law of works" and "the law of faith".
So what is the difference between the "law of faith" and the "law of works"?
 
Last edited:

Cassian

Senior Member
Oct 12, 2013
1,960
7
0
Wrong.

Abraham and Paul predate the Reformation by a year or two
(2Tim 1:9; Tit 3:5; Ro 4:2-3).
Lets look at them. II Tim 1:9 is addressing the salvation that Christ gave to the world. He is the one that did the works because we could not do them to save ourselves from death and sin. Christ saved us, the Gift of salvation, so that He could call us to be united with Him, in holiness, blameless. So, this is not even addressing the salvation of our souls or our individual salvation which is by and through faith.

Titus 3:5. Again the first part is all about what Christ did through His Incarnation and resurrection. Two additional gifts He gives is baptism and indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Again, nothing about faith which is the prerequiste for baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit.

Rom 4:2-3 this is explaining how Abraham was justified by faith, which we are as well. Where is faith ONLY in any of these texts regarding how we are saved. The closest is Rom 4:2-3 but that is only justification. We are not saved finitely just because we are justified. It is however, when we take possession of our salvation, but now begins the journey of salvation, the working out our salvation with fear and trembling. Salvation is all in the living of it, not faith only.




Under the new covenant, righteousness/justification is by faith alone, no good deeds involved
as they were in the old covenant ("As for me," Ge 17:4; "As for you," Ge 17:9).
In the new covenant, righteousness/justification is a free gift (Ro 5:17, 19, 3:24).
They were not even required in the Old Covenant. You just used the example of Abraham being justified by faith. He was NOT justified by works either.

Everything Christ does for us and gave to us is a Gift. Man cannot generate things on his own. But our obligation is to use those gifts. Being given the gift of faith, we must use it. We cannot bury that gift as the parable of the talents shows. We need to increase our faith, which we do by good works. Without the works, meaning we bury our faith, we will be cast into ourter darkness. Does not sound like salvation to me.

Unilateral, by faith alone, no good deeds involved on the part of the recipient are found in:

Heb 8:10, 12, 11:7; Ro 1:17, 3:21-22, 24, 4:5, 13, 9:30-32, 10:6; Gal 2:16; Eph 2:8-9; Php 3:9.
Faith alone is not even unilateral. Unless you are going to claim that it is God's faith that justifies us. Then we have repentance. 'Faith without the forgiveness of sin is meaningless. Baptism is required in order to be placed INTO Christ. Some of your citations speak directly against your premise. Rom 1:17 such because it requires living by faith. Faith is not just a mental, philosophical concept. It is lived out. Rom 3:21-22 is justification by faith. It is not addressing the living through faith. Justification is not salvation.
Rom 4:24 is not even specifically addressing believers. It is addressing the salvation all men get by Christ reconciling the world which follows in vs 23-25.
Rom 4:5 Again is speaking about justification, not being saved by faith alone.
Rom 4:13 does not address the topic either.
Rom 9:30-32 is about justification again. It is not being saved by faith alone.
Rom 10:6, the whole context is about believing, but does not address that believing or faith alone is what saves.
Gal 2:16 Again contrasting justification of works and of faith. But justification is not salvation. It simply means to be put into a correct relationship. This is what we do by faith. However, that faith must be active, continuing, and always in the present tense. Again, faith is dead without works. You cannot be saved by faith only. An impossiblity as per scripture.
Eph 2:8-9. Again, it has two aspects to it, but it is referencing the Salvation of Christ for all men vs 5, then Paul transitions and adds believers, and adds through faith. It does not say by faith which is justification. Through is an active faith. We are saved by works through faith.
Php3:9 again speaking about justification by faith. Another word for justification is righteousness, or to be made right.

By these citations you seem to think that one is actually saved just because one is justified. This might be the result of accepting another false teaching of scripture which is Anselm's Satisfaction theory of Atonement. He view is that by being justified, one is declared not guilty, thus saved.


So what is the difference between the "law of faith" and the "law of works"?
Every time Paul uses the phrase or alludes to "works of the law" it is referencing that man cannot save himself, the salvation from the fall. This is why Christ was needed. The law could not save a man from death and sin. Christ saved mankind from death and sin so that God and man could again be reunited in an eternal union of love and communion. This is NOT a passive phenonemon, but a very active one.
Once we enter by being justified by our faith, we begin the journey of salvation of our souls. That salvation is through our relationship with Christ. There is nothing static about it, it is ever dynamic and one can leave this relationship at any time, just as freely as Adam left his relationship with God in the beginning. It is salvation through faith. It is not being saved by works, but have been saved unto works.
 

Elin

Banned
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
Rom 4:2-3 this is explaining how Abraham was justified by faith. . .but that is only justification. We are not saved finitely just because we are justified. It is however, when we take possession of our salvation, but now begins the journey of salvation, the working out our salvation with fear and trembling. Salvation is all in the living of it, not faith only.
Your misrepresentation of Abraham's faith, as not saving him without deeds, demonstrates your denial of the plain meaning of the text.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to unravel or sort out for you your multitudinous
distortions of words,
denials of the plain meanings of texts, and
overlaying of your false notion onto the Scriptures.

You preach a false, twice-condemned gospel (Gal 1:6-9).
 
Last edited:
C

clancy62

Guest
So what "works" did the thief on the cross do in order for Jesus to say "today you will be with me in paradise"?
 

Cassian

Senior Member
Oct 12, 2013
1,960
7
0
Your misrepresentation of Abraham's faith, as not saving him without deeds, demonstrates your denial of the plain meaning of the text.
there is NOTHING in that text that says Abraham was saved. It clearly states He was justified by his faith. Justification does not mean salvation.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to unravel or sort out for you your multitudinous
distortions of words,
denials of the plain meanings of texts, and
overlaying of your false notion onto the Scriptures.
Meaning you have nothing to offer in refutation.

You preach a false, twice-condemned gospel (Gal 1:6-9).
same assertion without any evidence. If you think it is false, why not present the evidence that it is false.
scripture speaks categorically against "faith only". The ONLY time it is even stated, it is a negative.
Present the evidence that it does not originate with the Reformation. So, far you have presented none.
 

Cassian

Senior Member
Oct 12, 2013
1,960
7
0
So what "works" did the thief on the cross do in order for Jesus to say "today you will be with me in paradise"?
so one trots out an event that is not in the norm, but an exception, as If God needs to follow some rules. But, nevertheless, he confessed his own sin and then witnessed to the other thief for mocking against Christ. His faith justified Him and Jesus accepted that as sufficient for him.
However, that is not the norm and what is taught for believers under the New Covenant.
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
21,421
6,700
113
The thief believe Yeshua, Jesus. If this does not settle the question, then there is no hope for understanding......this has already been posted in this thread in response to the same question.



Joh 6:28
Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?


Joh 6:29
Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.


So what "works" did the thief on the cross do in order for Jesus to say "today you will be with me in paradise"?
 

Elin

Banned
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
so one trots out an event that is not in the norm, but an exception, as If God needs to follow some rules. But, nevertheless, he confessed his own sin and then witnessed to the other thief for mocking against Christ. His faith justified Him and Jesus accepted that as sufficient for him.
However, that is not the norm and what is taught for believers under the New Covenant.
Who made you the judge of the norm?

How many times does Scripture have to say/show it before it is true?

You've got a ridiculous excuse that denies every plain Scripture which contradicts your theology,
even such an idiotic one as "this one doesn't count."

And the woman to whom Jesus said, "Your faith has saved you," doesn't count either.

You are wilfully blind.
 

Elin

Banned
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
there is NOTHING in that text that says Abraham was saved. It clearly states He was justified by his faith.
Justification does not mean salvation.
Your Biblical ignorance is appalling.

Justification is right standing before God because of forgiveness of sin, by grace through faith
in Jesus Christ (Ro 5:17; Jn 3:16-18).

Salvation is forgiveness of sin (Lk 1:77).

Justification is salvation; i.e., saved from the wrath of God (Ro 5:9) on one's sin by its forgiveness.

You wrestle the Scriptures to your own ignorance.

Meaning you have nothing to offer in refutation.
Meaning what I said, and not what your lack of intellectual honesty wrestles it to mean,
as you wrestle the Scriptures.


Your duplicitous and willful ignorance is not worth the time to unravel and sort out for you.
 

Cassian

Senior Member
Oct 12, 2013
1,960
7
0
Who made you the judge of the norm?

How many times does Scripture have to say/show it before it is true?

You've got a ridiculous excuse that denies every plain Scripture which contradicts your theology,
even such an idiotic one as "this one doesn't count."

And the woman to whom Jesus said, "Your faith has saved you," doesn't count either.

You are wilfully blind.
The NORM is what has always been believed and understood what scripture means. Faith only concept is a notion originating in the Reformation. The Gospel of Christ had been in existence for 1500 years prior to that and the notion never appears as a scriptural meaning of salvation.

Where does scripture state that we as individuals are saved by faith ONLY?
What does Peter say that "faith only" actually means?
 

Elin

Banned
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
The NORM is what has always been believed and understood what scripture means. Faith only concept is a notion originating in the Reformation. The Gospel of Christ had been in existence for 1500 years prior to that and
the notion never appears as a scriptural meaning of salvation.
More blind wrestling of the Scriptures.

The "notion never appears" except all over Paul, who predates the Reformation by a year or two.

Your intellectually dishonesty and duplicitous representation of the Scriptures is not worth the time and
effort to unravel and sort out for you.

You are blind.
I can't fix that.
 

Cassian

Senior Member
Oct 12, 2013
1,960
7
0
Your Biblical ignorance is appalling.

Justification is right standing before God because of forgiveness of sin, by grace through faith
in Jesus Christ (Ro 5:17; Jn 3:16-18).
NOT exactly. It does mean to be in a correct relationship. It does NOT mean forgiveness of sin. Repentance is one of the very first acts of your faith. Baptism follows where the actual forgiveness takes place. If a believer did not do these things, you would no longer be justified. Your faith became dead, meaningless because it was not acted upon. To be forgiven of sin keeps us continually in a correct relationship with God. Which is why confession is very important. To sin and not confess one's sin, places one outside of Christ.

Salvation is forgiveness of sin (Lk 1:77).
The forgiveness of sin is necessary for salvation but does not constitute salvation in and of itself. The works that we are to do is the living of one's faith. When we don't do them, it is a sin. Those sins need to be remitted in order to remain in good standing with God. This is why it is very possible for a believer to lose faith. No works, means no faith and no repentance of those sins means one is outside of Christ.

Justification is salvation; i.e., saved from the wrath of God (Ro 5:9) on one's sin by its forgiveness.
It is a continual process. There is no static standing, or a finite status we have on this earth regarding our personal salvation.

You wrestle the Scriptures to your own ignorance.
Seems to be your problem.


Your duplicitous and willful ignorance is not worth the time to unravel and sort out for you.
which means youi have nothing to refute what scripture actually teaches and has always meant from the beginning.

Also you have not and are not being saved from wrath. That is a consequence of man's rebellion of not following Christ.
You were saved from death and sin so that man could be united with God eternally. Whether you are or not is the choice of man. The negative consequence is eternity separated from God relationally.
 
Mar 5, 2014
494
3
0
Also you have not and are not being saved from wrath.
Romans 5
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
 

Cassian

Senior Member
Oct 12, 2013
1,960
7
0
More blind wrestling of the Scriptures.
seems to fit your actions here.

The "notion never appears" except all over Paul, who predates the Reformation by a year or two.
If that is true, then you should have plenty of examples to cite over those 1500 years that the Church believed in a "faith only" notion for salvation. Instead of your empty assertions, why not cite the evidence.

Your intellectually dishonesty and duplicitous representation of the Scriptures is not worth the time and
effort to unravel and sort out for you.
which at this point has not had any evidence to the contrary.

You are blind.
I can't fix that.
Blind to your inaccurate portrayal of salvation. Why not back your assertions with some facts. You've got 1500 years of the Gospel being believed, taught, practiced, so lets leave the opinions and cite the facts.

You need to overcome the historical fact that Luther is credited with establishing the "sola fide" notion. That puts the idea in the 16th century and not with Paul or any other Apostle after Pentecost. Good luck.
 

Cassian

Senior Member
Oct 12, 2013
1,960
7
0
Romans 5
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
Which is what I stated. We shall be saved by His life, meaning we can be IN Christ, our choice. If we choose not to be in
Christ, we will suffer wrath. So, you are not being saved from wrath, but you were saved to have life IN HIM. And it is one's own choice besides.
It is the negative consequence to not do what we were created to do. The negative consequence of our own choice(s).
Or to put it another way, Christ saved mankind from death and sin in order that He might be reunited with man. The negative consequence is wrath. How can He save you from wrath, when it is your choice.


This concept of being saved from wrath or hell is the main foundation of Anselm's theory of Atonement. Which misses the whole purpose of why God created us in the first place, and Christ restored that purpose by giving life back to the world.
One is NOT created to be saved from something, but to have union with God. Man lost that posibility by the condemnation of death. Christ overcame death, so that man could again be reunited with God, now and for eternity.
 
Mar 12, 2014
6,433
29
0
You will not to understand.

I could suggest that you read 1 Corinthians 1 and 2 especially 2:12-16 but there is every likelihood you would just brush it off like you have all the scriptures that contradict the unsound doctrine you espouse.

Ask yourself is the blood of Christ wholly and completely sufficient to save a soul from its sin?

I believe that God is merciful and will honor His word. If any man seeks God he must believe that God is and that God is a rewarder of them that seek Him.

What we say into the scriptures means nothing it is only important what God says out of the scriptures.

John 14

For the cause of Christ
Roger
In the context of 2 Cor 1 and 2, the "spiritual man" are the inspired writers of the bible who were given miraculous abilty to receive the word from God and write it down. The "natural man" is one who was NOT endowed with miraculous ability to receive revelations from God.

Eph 3:3,4 "How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)"

So Paul was a "spiritual man", an inspired writer that was endowed with the ability to receive revelations from God and write them down so the natural man could then read and understand. Paul wrote "words." 1 Cor 2:13 "words" inspired writers got from the Holy SPirit and wrote those "words" down.



Who Is the “Natural” Man in 1 Corinthians 2:14?

BY WAYNE JACKSON


“Please explain this passage from First Corinthians. ‘Now the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged’ (2:14).”

The passage is a difficult one due to the complexity of the phraseology. Moreover, its obscurity has been further shrouded by considerable theological baggage that is without basis in Scripture.

It is unlikely that one can fully appreciate the instruction of 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16 without some understanding of the term “wisdom,” as that concept was viewed in Greek culture.

The Greeks vaunted in their alleged wisdom. Herodotus reported that these intellectual sophisticates had the reputation of “pursuing every kind of knowledge” (History IV.77). Celsus (c. A.D. 178), a Greek philosopher who wrote a bitter diatribe against Christianity, characterized the followers of Jesus as those who eschewed wisdom, but who welcomed the senseless and the ignorant (see: Origen, Against Celsus, 6:12-14). The Greeks viewed those outside the pale of Hellenism as “barbarians” (cf. Rom. 1:14).

Also, 1 Corinthians 2:14 must be viewed in the larger context of 1:18-3:23. Within the first three chapters of this book, the apostle uses the noun “wisdom” sixteen times, and the adjective “wise” ten times. Clearly, “wisdom” is a predominate theme in this section of the book.
For example, Paul argues the case that true wisdom is not the “wisdom of the wise” (1:19), the “wisdom of this world,” (1:20; 3:19), or the “wisdom of men” (2:5; cf. “fleshly wisdom,” 2 Cor. 1:12). While this was the sort of “wisdom” of which the Greeks boasted, genuine wisdom (divine wisdom) is embodied in the gospel revelation that pertains to the mission and message of Jesus Christ (1:24,30; 2:7). The person who ignores this body of truth is not wise; he is a fool.

Let us give brief consideration to the material that leads up to 2:14, and Paul’s discussion of the “natural man.”

Christ — the Wisdom and Power of God (1:18-25)


The apostle sets the philosophy of those who are under the spell of worldly wisdom in stark contrast to the disposition of those who yield to Heaven’s redemptive plan, which culminated in the cross. By and large, both Jew and Gentile failed to recognize the true “wisdom of God.” A crucified Messiah was a stumbling block to the Hebrews, and to the Gentile pseudo-intellectuals, the idea of a vicarious sacrifice for sin was sheer foolishness.

Such rebels would be dealt with eventually. In the meantime, any who accepted the “call” of God through the gospel, whether Jew or Gentile, could be saved from sin through the work of Christ, who is the manifestation of the power and wisdom of God.

The Divine Calling (1:26-31)


The Lord’s call to sinful humanity, as made known through the gospel (cf. 2 Thes. 2:14), would not appeal to those who haughtily perceived themselves as wise, mighty, noble, etc. In view of man’s arrogance against the Creator, abject humility is requisite to becoming a Christian.
The Lord’s choice, therefore, of seemingly “weak” and “foolish” things in the plan of redemption was by design; it was and is a test of faith.

Paul’s Credentials at Corinth (2:1-5)


The apostle introduces the circumstances that pertained to himself, as he initially evangelized in Corinth, as evidence of the nature of the gospel system. Paul’s method of presentation (not with eloquence or with human wisdom) and his presence (weakness, fear, much trembling) both were manifestations that the power of the gospel was by the Holy Spirit. Christianity is a divine system.

A Plan Once Hidden, Now Revealed (2:6-13)

Again the apostle draws a distinction between the “wisdom” of the world, which will be rendered powerless, and Heaven’s wisdom. God’s wise plan, as it was secretly worked out across the ages, could not be accessed by human mental ingenuity. This lack of man’s intellectual acumen was evidenced by the fact that the rulers crucified the Lord of glory. Accordingly, one is driven to the conclusion that the divine scheme of things had to be revealed by God’s Spirit, who, being deity himself, knows the “deep” things of the sacred plan.

Paul illustrates the matter. Just as one cannot know the mind of another person, unless revealed by that person, even so, no one can access the “things of God” unless such were made known by his Spirit. The apostle then pinpoints the medium and method of that communication. The medium was Lord’s inspired spokesmen (“which things we speak”); the method was by means of sacred words (“words which . . .the Spirit teaches”).

The Impotence of the Natural Man (2:14-16)


The student is now prepared to identify the “natural man,” in light of the preceding context. The term “natural” (Grk. psuchikos — v. 14a) stands in contrast to “spiritual” (pneumatikos man mentioned in 15a. (Note the adversative particle de that begins verse 15.)

From the context, it is perfectly clear that the “spiritual” person is one who is supernaturally endowed with the Spirit, and thus is qualified to bring those “words” which the Holy Spirit is teaching him (v. 13). Accordingly, the “natural” man is simply the one who does not have access to divine revelation. He relies upon the “wisdom of the world,” hence, knows nothing of the “things of God.” He has no ability to “receive” (i.e., access; a middle voice form suggesting “unto himself”) the sacred truths that issue from the “mind of the Lord” (v. 16).

Calvinistic Confusion

It is, of course, quite common to hear the view that the “natural” man is the unregenerated sinner who is so enslaved in sin as to be unable to apprehend the gospel of God unless “illuminated” by a direct operation of the Holy Spirit. The sad reality is, it is difficult to locate many scholars who have not been tainted with Calvin’s views of this matter (cf. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975, Vol. I, Bk. II, 19-20). But this theory may be faulted on several grounds.

(1) The theme of this section of Paul’s letter is not “sinner” versus “saint,” or the “unregenerate” in contrast to the “regenerate.” Rather, as we have carefully documented above, the distinction is between “human wisdom” and “divine revelation.”
In the original setting, the “spiritual” man was the one upon whom the gift of “inspiration” was bestowed. In principle, to us it would be the testimony of the Holy Writings (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

On the other hand, then, the “natural” man is the one who seeks whatever union he hopes to gain with the Creator by means of his own arrogant, self-serving intellect. And the kindred descendants of the ancient Greeks are legion.

(2) The language of verse 13 plainly indicates that the “spiritual” person of verse 16 received “words” that the Holy Spirit employed, not some undefined “illumination.” Accordingly, if this text affirms that the Christian today directly receives that which is addressed in this passage, then it must be concluded that God’s children in this age are being given “word” messages from the Spirit personally.
If that is the case, and they should write down these words, would not their words be as binding as those of the apostles? And would not this make the Bible itself virtually obsolete? What do we need with documents two millennia old, if we have a direct, word-by-word pipeline to heaven? Sometimes folks simply do not “think through” the positions they espouse.

(3) Finally, the Calvinist view of this context makes God morally culpable. For instance, note this declaration from A.T. Robertson. This Baptist scholar argued that the “mind of the flesh” does not possess ability “to receive the things of the Spirit untouched by the Spirit. Certainly the initiative comes from God whose Holy Spirit makes it possible for us to accept the things of the Spirit of God” (Word Pictures in the New Testament,Nashville: Broadman, 1931, IV, p. 89).

If this position is true, whose fault is it if the “unregenerate” man never accesses the “things of God”?

In conclusion, then, we must insist that the key to understanding the “natural man,” as discussed by Paul, is to be found in viewing this passage in the light of the broader context of the early portion of his epistle. The Calvinistic assertion with reference to this text reflects both a misunderstanding of the local context, and the general scriptural teaching relative to the work of the Holy Spirit.
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/643-who-is-the-natural-man-in-1-corinthians-2-14
 
Last edited: