1 Corinthians 2:14

[Carbon]

But a natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

How is this possible? Why would Paul write and teach such a thing? Does the natural man (the unregenerate) really not accept the things of the Spirit, and are they foolish? If so, in what way? And can these things really only be understood only by the Spirit?
Is this why Jesus said, . . . . “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

So, considering 1 Cor 2:14,
Paul teaches that there is an inability of the natural man (one who is unregenerated) to accept and understand the things of the Spirit (seems a universal statement).
The foolishness of the things of God, according to the scripture, is due to the fact that they are spiritually appraised. And as we know, "the natural man is not a spiritual man." So, obviously, there is a problem here.
Now, no one says the natural man cannot understand the basic things of the gospel. for example, the command to believe, repent, etc... But to understand how the word understand is used in this passage is important to understand what Paul is teaching. That is, - the natural man cannot accept and embrace spiritual things because he himself is not spiritually alive.

And, Reformed theology holds that the natural man is blind to spiritual values and that the sinful heart of man, so far from being disposed to yield itself in loving trust to God, is at enmity towards God. It is impossible that the external call by itself should produce faith in the heart of the natural man. The natural man cannot exercise saving faith since he cannot see the kingdom of God and its treasures, and much less can he appreciate the same. He must receive faith as a gift of God. This faith, however, is not communicated to man after a mechanical fashion. The Holy Spirit, by regeneration, creates in man a capacity for believing the gospel message.

 

[Carbon]

But a natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

How is this possible? Why would Paul write and teach such a thing? Does the natural man (the unregenerate) really not accept the things of the Spirit, and are they foolish? If so, in what way? And can these things really only be understood only by the Spirit?
Is this why Jesus said, . . . . “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

So, considering 1 Cor 2:14,
Paul teaches that there is an inability of the natural man (one who is unregenerated) to accept and understand the things of the Spirit (seems a universal statement).
The foolishness of the things of God, according to the scripture, is due to the fact that they are spiritually appraised. And as we know, "the natural man is not a spiritual man." So, obviously, there is a problem here.
Now, no one says the natural man cannot understand the basic things of the gospel. for example, the command to believe, repent, etc... But to understand how the word understand is used in this passage is important to understand what Paul is teaching. That is, - the natural man cannot accept and embrace spiritual things because he himself is not spiritually alive.

And, Reformed theology holds that the natural man is blind to spiritual values and that the sinful heart of man, so far from being disposed to yield itself in loving trust to God, is at enmity towards God. It is impossible that the external call by itself should produce faith in the heart of the natural man. The natural man cannot exercise saving faith since he cannot see the kingdom of God and its treasures, and much less can he appreciate the same. He must receive faith as a gift of God. This faith, however, is not communicated to man after a mechanical fashion. The Holy Spirit, by regeneration, creates in man a capacity for believing the gospel message.

There has been a lot of talk concerning this. I also noticed that if we let these discussions go unchecked, the Arminians often begin to argue a strawman.
I have heard Arminians argue that Calvinists believe that a totally depraved person is spiritually dead. By "spiritually dead," they mean the elimination of all human ability to understand or respond to God, not just a separation from God.

But this is not the Reformed position. Again, the spiritual dead person does not mean the elimination of all human ability to understand or respond to God. The unregenerate man is fully capable of understanding the facts of the gospel (I've witnessed it), but he is simply not capable, due to the corruption and enmity of submitting himself to the gospel.

So, the Reformed position is that man cannot understand and embrace the gospel nor respond in faith and repentance toward Christ without God first freeing him from sin and giving him spiritual life (regeneration).

 

[Carbon]

So, the Reformed position is that man cannot understand and embrace the gospel nor respond in faith and repentance toward Christ without God first freeing him from sin and giving him spiritual life (regeneration).

The Holy Spirit, in His regenerating activity, works below our (man's) consciousness on the very center of our (man's) being, so that our will is transformed in such a way that we turn away from sin and towards God and the good freely and gladly.

 

[Hazelelponi]

The gospel can be heard, analyzed, even defended—and still be regarded as foolish, because its glory and necessity are spiritually discerned.

That’s what makes regeneration so essential. Unless God gives life, the heart remains confident in the wrong things—often sincerely confident. I know what it is to believe I was righteous when I was not, to be certain and yet blind. That blindness isn’t stupidity; it’s enmity

When God opens someone's eyes, the result is not self-confidence but dependence. You walk into a world of competing claims, denominations, and voices, and the only thing you find you can actually cling to is Christ Himself. Not your understanding. Not your consistency. Not your ability to reason your way through it all—but Christ alone.

That is precisely why Paul says the natural man cannot accept the things of the Spirit. Acceptance here is not mere comprehension; it is embracing, valuing, and submitting. That requires new life.

So when Scripture says faith is a gift, it isn’t denying responsibility or human action. It’s confessing reality: left to ourselves, we would never choose rightly because we cannot see rightly without His eyes. Regeneration doesn’t coerce the will; it frees it. It gives a heart that now sees Christ as necessary, precious, and true, and supernaturally manages to hold us there against all odds.

That’s not academic. It’s a matter of life and death. And it’s why this doctrine should never be treated lightly or jokingly—because it deals with how sinners like us come to cling to Christ, the only hope any of us have.


P.S. love the kitty avatar. I do like cats.

 

[Carbon]

The gospel can be heard, analyzed, even defended—and still be regarded as foolish, because its glory and necessity are spiritually discerned.

That’s what makes regeneration so essential. Unless God gives life, the heart remains confident in the wrong things—often sincerely confident. I know what it is to believe I was righteous when I was not, to be certain and yet blind. That blindness isn’t stupidity; it’s enmity

When God opens someone's eyes, the result is not self-confidence but dependence. You walk into a world of competing claims, denominations, and voices, and the only thing you find you can actually cling to is Christ Himself. Not your understanding. Not your consistency. Not your ability to reason your way through it all—but Christ alone.

That is precisely why Paul says the natural man cannot accept the things of the Spirit. Acceptance here is not mere comprehension; it is embracing, valuing, and submitting. That requires new life.

So when Scripture says faith is a gift, it isn’t denying responsibility or human action. It’s confessing reality: left to ourselves, we would never choose rightly because we cannot see rightly without His eyes. Regeneration doesn’t coerce the will; it frees it. It gives a heart that now sees Christ as necessary, precious, and true, and supernaturally manages to hold us there against all odds.

That’s not academic. It’s a matter of life and death. And it’s why this doctrine should never be treated lightly or jokingly—because it deals with how sinners like us come to cling to Christ, the only hope any of us have.


P.S. love the kitty avatar. I do like cats.

I’m glad you like my cat.

 

[brightfame52]

When Paul writes 1 Cor 2:14 foolishness, does that mean the the preaching of the Cross in the previous chapter 1 Cor 1:18

18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

are the "spiritual things of the Spirit of God" the same as the "preaching of the Cross"

 

[Carbon]

When Paul writes 1 Cor 2:14 foolishness, does that mean the the preaching of the Cross in the previous chapter 1 Cor 1:18

18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

are the "spiritual things of the Spirit of God" the same as the "preaching of the Cross"

Do you believe the same thing will mean something different in the next chapter?

 

[brightfame52]

Do you believe the same thing will mean something different in the next chapter?

I believe the things of the Spirit of God in 1 Cor 2:14 are inclusive of the preaching of the cross in 1 Cor 1:18 how about you

 

[Arial]

But a natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

How is this possible? Why would Paul write and teach such a thing? Does the natural man (the unregenerate) really not accept the things of the Spirit, and are they foolish? If so, in what way? And can these things really only be understood only by the Spirit?
Is this why Jesus said, . . . . “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

So, considering 1 Cor 2:14,
Paul teaches that there is an inability of the natural man (one who is unregenerated) to accept and understand the things of the Spirit (seems a universal statement).
The foolishness of the things of God, according to the scripture, is due to the fact that they are spiritually appraised. And as we know, "the natural man is not a spiritual man." So, obviously, there is a problem here.
Now, no one says the natural man cannot understand the basic things of the gospel. for example, the command to believe, repent, etc... But to understand how the word understand is used in this passage is important to understand what Paul is teaching. That is, - the natural man cannot accept and embrace spiritual things because he himself is not spiritually alive.

And, Reformed theology holds that the natural man is blind to spiritual values and that the sinful heart of man, so far from being disposed to yield itself in loving trust to God, is at enmity towards God. It is impossible that the external call by itself should produce faith in the heart of the natural man. The natural man cannot exercise saving faith since he cannot see the kingdom of God and its treasures, and much less can he appreciate the same. He must receive faith as a gift of God. This faith, however, is not communicated to man after a mechanical fashion. The Holy Spirit, by regeneration, creates in man a capacity for believing the gospel message.

Tell an unregenerate man he needs to repent and see what happens. Tell an unregenerate person that Jesus is God and see what happens. Not many deny the existence of Jesus, and they can understand every word, that is true, but they will likely scoff and ask how that is even possible. Tell an unregenerate person that Jesus went to the cross in the place of humans in order to purchase a people for God. Preach PSA to them and if they haven't already walked away, or gotten angry, they will likely look at you like you are a nut case or say they don't need a God who would do that to an innocent man. The good news cannot penetrate the heart of stone.

 

[makesends]

There has been a lot of talk concerning this. I also noticed that if we let these discussions go unchecked, the Arminians often begin to argue a strawman.
I have heard Arminians argue that Calvinists believe that a totally depraved person is spiritually dead. By "spiritually dead," they mean the elimination of all human ability to understand or respond to God, not just a separation from God.

But this is not the Reformed position. Again, the spiritual dead person does not mean the elimination of all human ability to understand or respond to God. The unregenerate man is fully capable of understanding the facts of the gospel (I've witnessed it), but he is simply not capable, due to the corruption and enmity of submitting himself to the gospel.

So, the Reformed position is that man cannot understand and embrace the gospel nor respond in faith and repentance toward Christ without God first freeing him from sin and giving him spiritual life (regeneration).

This is, to me, another of the approaches to understanding monergism's necessity. I think it is both more and less than what you describe here, and what @Arial describes below. When I sin, I become aware of my fragile hold on eternal life, from Scripture's repeated statements that the believer does not continue to sin. Then, I repent, though my history shows my repentance doesn't mean a whole lot. So: If I am only fooling myself, and am not one of his, it doesn't mean that I don't want to repent, that I don't ache to be holy, free of guilt, while after that attempted repentance rejoicing in what I take to be sin forgiven, and all the benefits that Hebrews 6 speaks of including what I take for fellowship of the Spirit of God.

If I am not one of his, my enmity with God runs so deep that not only are all my intentions corrupt, but even all my assessments of my intentions are corrupt, and the assessments of those who see my life are not reliable.

If there is anything good in me, it is God's doing.

The split between those whose faith is God-made --i.e. the regenerate--, and the rest, while it can be said that they may have intelligent understanding of spiritual things, and while it can also be said that they are at enmity with Christ and want nothing to do with him, THEY don't necessarily know that, nor feel that enmity. Arial is right, in general, but we who long to be holy, can still be fooling ourselves, that we are in him. The enmity runs so deep that only God can root it out. And we may not even be aware of him doing so, at first.

Tell an unregenerate man he needs to repent and see what happens. Tell an unregenerate person that Jesus is God and see what happens. Not many deny the existence of Jesus, and they can understand every word, that is true, but they will likely scoff and ask how that is even possible. Tell an unregenerate person that Jesus went to the cross in the place of humans in order to purchase a people for God. Preach PSA to them and if they haven't already walked away, or gotten angry, they will likely look at you like you are a nut case or say they don't need a God who would do that to an innocent man. The good news cannot penetrate the heart of stone.

It's not that the heart of stone cannot be penetrated, but that God won't do so until it is time. Another way to say the same thing, is to say that the good news is not really good news to the unbeliever, since it is only spiritually discerned.

 

[QVQ]

Adam was banshed from God. It is the state of Adam after the Fall. Adam knew God face to face before the fall yet I am thinking that the things of the world drowned out Adams knowing to where Adam barely remembered and no longer regarded God after the Fall.
Adam's relationship after the fall to God and Adam's state from the foundation of the world are relevent perhaps

jmho

 

[Josheb]

There has been a lot of talk concerning this. I also noticed that if we let these discussions go unchecked, the Arminians often begin to argue a strawman.
I have heard Arminians argue that Calvinists believe that a totally depraved person is spiritually dead. By "spiritually dead," they mean the elimination of all human ability to understand or respond to God, not just a separation from God.

It's that part about responding that's critical and critical at a presuppositional level. It's also why so many monergists don't reply with a cogent defense. Presuppositionally speaking, the sinner's will, the sinner's volitional faculties, are IRRELEVANT!!! The minute the monergists gets into a debate over the salience of volitional agency s/he has surrendered ground to the synergist that should never have been conceded. Ask a synergist to prove the necessity of the sinner's volition and the conversation ends. It falters because there is no scripture stating the sinner's will is germane. It is something the synergist assumes and assumes without explicit basis for doing so. The minute the assumption is accepted as something salient the monergist is on the defense. Stop playing defense!

Another problem in synergism apologetics is the assumption "hearing" is somehow causal and not merely correlative. People hear the gospel every day and do not respond. The synergist apologetic attributes that failure to the sinner choosing not to respond. They have a difficult time with the determinism inherent in passages like Isaiah 6:8-10, the force of prophetic might, and the way the New Testament applies those prophecies. If God makes a person blind, deaf, and ignorant then no amount of sinful volition can overcome that problem. Digressions over why God would do that are simply red herrings. The fact is, whatever the reason, God does blind and deafen sinners. It's a fact of scripture. The sovereignty of God has to be denied to ignore these scriptures.

Much of the synergism v monergism debate revolves around whether or not sin's lethality applies to the sinner's will. That is bait. Make the synergist prove volition is relevant. Aside from the inability to prove sin's tyranny, there's the problem of divine sovereignty. God can be much more tyrannical than sin. That's why the synergist has to resort to God allowing Himself to be overruled or God surrendering His sovereignty to the sinner and thereby providing ground for volitional agency. Never mind the reality that will is the will of the sinner and his/her sinful flesh. Sin somehow begets a sovereign-over-sin godly choice. At the foundation of that nonsense is the sinner's sovereignty. God's not sovereign but the sinner somehow is sovereign over the lethal enslaving condition. S/he magically overrules his master (sin).


Volitional agency is bait. It's a trap. It's a red herring. It is idolatrous.


And monergists need to stop entertaining that nonsense and keep the onus firmly on the synergist until they prove the relevance of sinful volition, and then the veracity of it.

Expect ad hominem if you do .

 

[makesends]

It's that part about responding that's critical and critical at a presuppositional level. It's also why so many monergists don't reply with a cogent defense. Presuppositionally speaking, the sinner's will, the sinner's volitional faculties, are IRRELEVANT!!! The minute the monergists gets into a debate over the salience of volitional agency s/he has surrendered ground to the synergist that should never have been conceded. Ask a synergist to prove the necessity of the sinner's volition and the conversation ends. It falters because there is no scripture stating the sinner's will is germane. It is something the synergist assumes and assumes without explicit basis for doing so. The minute the assumption is accepted as something salient the monergist is on the defense. Stop playing defense!

Another problem in synergism apologetics is the assumption "hearing" is somehow causal and not merely correlative. People hear the gospel every day and do not respond. The synergist apologetic attributes that failure to the sinner choosing not to respond. They have a difficult time with the determinism inherent in passages like Isaiah 6:8-10, the force of prophetic might, and the way the New Testament applies those prophecies. If God makes a person blind, deaf, and ignorant then no amount of sinful volition can overcome that problem. Digressions over why God would do that are simply red herrings. The fact is, whatever the reason, God does blind and deafen sinners. It's a fact of scripture. The sovereignty of God has to be denied to ignore these scriptures.

Much of the synergism v monergism debate revolves around whether or not sin's lethality applies to the sinner's will. That is bait. Make the synergist prove volition is relevant. Aside from the inability to prove sin's tyranny, there's the problem of divine sovereignty. God can be much more tyrannical than sin. That's why the synergist has to resort to God allowing Himself to be overruled or God surrendering His sovereignty to the sinner and thereby providing ground for volitional agency. Never mind the reality that will is the will of the sinner and his/her sinful flesh. Sin somehow begets a sovereign-over-sin godly choice. At the foundation of that nonsense is the sinner's sovereignty. God's not sovereign but the sinner somehow is sovereign over the lethal enslaving condition. S/he magically overrules his master (sin).


Volitional agency is bait. It's a trap. It's a red herring. It is idolatrous.


And monergists need to stop entertaining that nonsense and keep the onus firmly on the synergist until they prove the relevance of sinful volition, and then the veracity of it.

Expect ad hominem if you do .

Volitional agency is germane to the question of why the passages the Arminian uses are still useless to prove their position. The verses DO reference volitional agency. Eg, "I gave her room to repent, but she would not."

True that volitional agency cannot effect regeneration and salvation. But the proof is in the pudding: If Jezebel rejects Christ, Jezebel proves that she is not saved. If, on the other hand, one truly repents, they have proved that they belong to Christ.

I don't think you would claim that Total Depravity is irrelevant.

 

[Josheb]

Volitional agency is germane to the question of why the passages the Arminian uses are still useless to prove their position.

Volitional agency is not germane if it does not exist. Volitional agency is not germane if salvation is not predicated on volitional agency. BOTH conditions have to be assumed for synergism to exist in the first place.

The verses DO reference volitional agency. Eg, "I gave her room to repent, but she would not."

Only in the synergist reading of the verse. That verse could just as readily be read to mean God was observing the inability. Scripture is filled with statements like that. The first occurrence is God telling Cain not to give in to his anger.

Genesis 4:6-7
Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why is your face gloomy? If you do well, will your face not be cheerful? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.”

That word, "master" is salient. It's not sin driving Cain. It is anger that is driving can. Sin desires to master Cain in his anger. As study of anger is worth the effort here because scripture is filled with commentary on how human anger never accomplishes the righteousness of God, but for now, due to space, the context for God's statement that scripture later provides is that Cain already has two problems he cannot overcome. The first is the tyranny of ungodly anger, the second is sin's desire to master him, instead of him mastering it.

Can

any

human

master

sin

apart

from

Christ?​

No! If we could then Christ would be unnecessary. No amount of volitional agency will ever master sin. It might maybe possibly overcome one specific occasion, but not the entire human nature that is sinful. Cain had already sinned. He was a sinner. He was already dead in sin and enslaved to sin before he murdered his brother in anger. His volitional agency is non-existent. His non-existent volitional agency is irrelevant.

More importantly, and perhaps I should have mentioned this first, but I have my reasons for not doing so, the ability to repent is not the same as the ability to save oneself. The verse you've cited (Rev. 2:21) is couched in the identity of Jezebel. God does state (unlike the Cain passage) that she did not want to repent, but that does not necessarily imply she has any agency to do so. It could just as readily mean she has no ability to do so. Why not? Because God Himself has precluded the possibility. There are multiple occasions when God says "This person X is experiencing the enslaving effects of their sin so I will make it more so. I will make them more enslaved." God hardening Pharoah's already hardened heart would be one example. Isaiah's blind and deaf people in the house of Israel is no different. They are already blind, deaf, and willfully ignorant. God says, "Okay, be that way."

No. I am not going to be the way God made me!

God's is rolling on the floor of eternity laughing His proverbial backside off at that petulantly sinful nonsense. "Yeah. Okay. You do that. I'll watch."

The synergist must explain how volitional agency is necessary before s/he can assert it as a predicate to synergist soteriology. That happens only through the silence of scripture's mentions of soteriologically salient voltional agency and the multiple of occasions where scripture reports the agency of God. In other words, scripture is silent in its saying the sinner's volition is causal but consistent with its report God's volition is causal.

God did it = multiple reports

Sinner's sinfully dead and enslaved will did it = zero. utter silence

True that volitional agency cannot effect regeneration and salvation. But....

No, there's not "but..." The Calvinist v Arm soteriological debate is solely and entirely about how a person gets saved. It is not about any other choice. The synergist would like us to accept the premise all abilities to choose are identical, but they are not. Because a person cannot save himself it is always and everywhere irrational, and wholly unscriptural, to argue soteriologically salient volitional agency exists. It is equally irrational to engage in that debate is if the synergist belief has any veracity.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
The verses DO reference volitional agency. Eg, "I gave her room to repent, but she would not."

Only in the synergist reading of the verse. That verse could just as readily be read to mean God was observing the inability. Scripture is filled with statements like that. The first occurrence is God telling Cain not to give in to his anger.

No! It does reference volitional agency. You are right that it does not make any claim as to her ability—only as to her responsibility. But maybe you mean something different by "volitional agency" than will and ability to choose.

No! If we could then Christ would be unnecessary. No amount of volitional agency will ever master sin. It might maybe possibly overcome one specific occasion, but not the entire human nature that is sinful. Cain had already sinned. He was a sinner. He was already dead in sin and enslaved to sin before he murdered his brother in anger. His volitional agency is non-existent. His non-existent volitional agency is irrelevant.

I don't get why you are saying that no amount of volitional agency will ever master sin. Of course it cannot! Nevertheless, Cain is responsible for his sin.

More importantly, and perhaps I should have mentioned this first, but I have my reasons for not doing so, the ability to repent is not the same as the ability to save oneself. The verse you've cited (Rev. 2:21) is couched in the identity of Jezebel. God does state (unlike the Cain passage) that she did not want to repent, but that does not necessarily imply she has any agency to do so. It could just as readily mean she has no ability to do so. Why not? Because God Himself has precluded the possibility. There are multiple occasions when God says "This person X is experiencing the enslaving effects of their sin so I will make it more so. I will make them more enslaved." God hardening Pharoah's already hardened heart would be one example. Isaiah's blind and deaf people in the house of Israel is no different. They are already blind, deaf, and willfully ignorant. God says, "Okay, be that way."

I agree completely. That doesn't change the fact that she decided—i.e. that she had "volitional agency".

 

[Josheb]

makesends said:
The verses DO reference volitional agency. Eg, "I gave her room to repent, but she would not."

No! It does reference volitional agency. You are right that it does not make any claim as to her ability—only as to her responsibility.

Hmmm.... The words of that post should have been re-read and thought through before clicking "Post reply," because if there is no ability then there is no agency. Therefore, Post 15 is self-contradictory.

But maybe you mean something different by "volitional agency" than will and ability to choose.

Maybe I do not. Remember: we are not talking about the ability to choose which flavor of ice cream or what car color is preferred. We are talking about salvation and the "things of the Spirit."

1 Corinthians 2:14
But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

Let's choose what we cannot accept. Let's choose what we think is foolish. Let's choose what we cannot understand. Post 15 is self-contradictory.

I don't get why you are saying that no amount of volitional agency will ever master sin. Of course it cannot!

That is why I said it. You are trying to say volitional agency (some kind of efficacy of the sinner's will) exists in matters regarding the things of the Spirit and salvation BUT you also say, "Of course it cannot," and in doing so.....

Post 15 is self-contradictory.

Nevertheless, Cain is responsible for his sin.

Yep. He willfully chooses to sin. God did not make Him sin (which would be the case with meticulous causality).

I agree completely. That doesn't change the fact that she decided—i.e. that she had "volitional agency".

That's not what the text actually states. That is simply and solely how you read the text. Even if we were to infer volitional agency, she chooses what she wants and what she wants is sexual immorality, the antithesis divine will, faithful faith, righteous conduct, and..... the things of the Spirit.

Revelation 22:18
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book...


Soteriological volitional agency is being read into the text and that inference is based on a self-contradictory (and therefore self-refuting) set of beliefs. Furthermore, when it is acknowledged Jezebel cannot save herself that necessarily precludes any and all related volitional agency, whether it be monergist or synergist. Revelation 2:21 is an affirmation of 1 Corinthians 2:14. It's also an affirmation of Romans 1:

Romans 1:28ff
And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful.....

There is no volitional agency in the God-given state. What is described there is bondage, enslavement, the antithesis of agency (volitional, cognitive, and behavioral).

1 Corinthians 2:6-14
Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood.......... For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

That part about not being able to understand is what depravity does. It's also what being handed over to a depraved mind does. God piles the problem onto the sinner. There's no agency of the sinner in it. Not even a possibility of agency. How can a choice be made for a God who doesn't exist, a salvation that doesn't exist by a Savior that doesn't exist, from sin that doesn't exist, with a free will that doesn't exist?




Then there is the matter of your linear causality applied to the inferred volitional agency of Revelation 2:21. God caused the inferred agency and the inability. Post 15 is self-contradictory. The correct destination has been reached (monergism), but the avenue taken to get there is faulty.

 

[makesends]

if there is no ability then there is no agency.

Sloughing terms again. "No ability" refers to what will (or will not) indeed happen, by whatever agency it happens. You equate them, but they are not the same thing.

For example, we all choose—the reprobate always choose in rebellion and enmity to God, the regenerate able to choose according to their new nature. Romans 8, bro. Unable, but responsible.

 

[Josheb]

Sloughing terms again. "No ability" refers to what will (or will not) indeed happen, by whatever agency it happens.

No, it does not. It refers to what is able to happen. Hence that "able-ity."

You equate them, but they are not the same thing.

For example, we all choose—the reprobate always choose in rebellion and enmity to God, the regenerate able to choose according to their new nature. Romans 8, bro. Unable, but responsible.

Fail

We do not all choose. We are driven by sin while in the sinfully dead and enslaved sinful state. Didn't I read the mention of Total Depravity earlier . Except for Provisionists/Traditionalists both synergists and monergists accept and assert the reality of Total Depravity. Arminius himself stated the sinner is incapable of doing soteriological good. S/he is not able. No fleshly choice is good (or meritorious, or effective) even if it is compliant. Every single choice made by sinful flesh bears the mark and stench of sin. Every choice is a corrupt choice, a rotting choice, a dead choice.... all driven by sin and the additional burdens God has placed on the sinner. If "the reprobate always choose in rebellion and enmity," it's not a choice to do otherwise. Choices with only one option aren't choices.


No sloughing of terms needed, wanted, nor existent. Try using the word "you" less because what I am being told I think and do is NOT what I think or do. Post 17 is wrong.

 

[makesends]

No, it does not. It refers to what is able to happen. Hence that "able-ity."

Yes. Can you prove that choice implies ability? As history demonstrates —empirically, one might say— only the only thing that ever happens is whatever happens, nothing else. So how can you prove that something else was able to happen? That the choice was before Ninevah to make is indisputable, but what Ninevah chose was a sure thing that God caused. In fact, the only way a choice even CAN happen is by God's establishing it.

Why do we pray that God would do this or that in the heart and life of someone we love? Yet, our prayer is according to the will of God, or it fails to accomplish what WE had in mind by it.

Fail

We do not all choose. We are driven by sin while in the sinfully dead and enslaved sinful state. Didn't I read the mention of Total Depravity earlier . Except for Provisionists/Traditionalists both synergists and monergists accept and assert the reality of Total Depravity. Arminius himself stated the sinner is incapable of doing soteriological good. S/he is not able. No fleshly choice is good (or meritorious, or effective) even if it is compliant. Every single choice made by sinful flesh bears the mark and stench of sin. Every choice is a corrupt choice, a rotting choice, a dead choice.... all driven by sin and the additional burdens God has placed on the sinner. If "the reprobate always choose in rebellion and enmity," it's not a choice to do otherwise.

No news there. I never mentioned that 'choice' implies the ability to do otherwise. It does not.

Would you hold that the command implies the ability to obey it? I don't think you would. Yet, the disobedient are held responsible to obey, all the same.

Choices with only one option aren't choices.

Notice the assertion used as axiomatic, here: "Choices with only one option aren't choices." I disagree. But I will admit, you may have a different meaning/use for "option" from what I mean by it.

The assertion is mistaken. I would like you to prove that anything can happen, besides what does happen. After all, isn't that what's implied by your meaning for "option"?

No sloughing of terms needed, wanted, nor existent. Try using the word "you" less because what I am being told I think and do is NOT what I think or do. Post 17 is wrong.

I'll think about it.

 

[Josheb]

Yes. Can you prove that choice implies ability?

I never said choice implies ability so I am not sure why I would be asked to prove something not stated. Perhaps I have unwittingly enter some sort of new game where we're asking others if they can prove random things. Let's see....

Can you prove giraffes can roller skate with only one skate on the left front leg and one skate on the back right leg?

What I did say was "inability" means "not able to happen." If that is applied to choice, then an inability to choose means not able to choose.

As history demonstrates —empirically, one might say— only the only thing that ever happens is whatever happens, nothing else.

Which has no bearing on the discussion of 1 Corinthians 2:14.

According to that verse and the passage in which it occurs, the "natural man" CANNOT understand the things of the Spirit. There is no ability to do so. Two causal relationships exist in the verse, the first implied and the second stated.

1. Because the things of the Spirit are spiritually discerned...
2. the natural man cannot (has no ability) to understand the things of the Spirit....
3. and, therefore, he does not accept them and considers them foolish.

When this is applied to the matter of salvation it means a natural man has no ability to understand salvation. Why? Because salvation is, by definition (see John 3:5-8), a thing of the Spirit. When this is applied to choices this begs a series of questions that can be answered only, "He cannot."

How can a natural man choose something he does not understand, does not accept, thinks is foolish, and can discern only when possessing God's Spirit?

He cannot. The reason he (the natural man) cannot do so is because his volitional agency is not free (unfettered or autonomous), but dead and enslaved by sin. It cannot choose because it is not free, free to choose. There is no ability to do so. One of the most fundamental and foundational aspects of salvation is the Spirit's moving a person from the position of being dead in sin (see also Eph. 2:1) to the position of being dead to sin. The natural man who is dead in sin has sin working within him to deceive him (see Romans 7); his mind of flesh is hostile to God and he cannot and does not please God. He is not able to do so. That mind is death. (see Romans 8:5-8). Salvation is life.

For some unstated reason you think this is about what is possible when the exact opposite is the case. The sinner has no possibilities lest God acts in him to free him from sin and death and provide in him life, the kind of life found in Christ, the resurrected Son of God. Not just the false "life" of an animated corpse, which is what a natural man sinner is, but the abundant eternal life given by the Spirit.

So how can you prove that something else was able to happen?

When there is an op on that subject, we can discuss that but this op is about 1 Corinthians 2:14, and the answer to the questions...

But a natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

How is this possible? Why would Paul write and teach such a thing? Does the natural man (the unregenerate) really not accept the things of the Spirit, and are they foolish? If so, in what way? And can these things really only be understood only by the Spirit?
Is this why Jesus said, . . . . “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” [?]

Therefore, Post 19 is off topic.

I never mentioned that 'choice' implies the ability to do otherwise. It does not.

Then why ask me to prove something I never said and something you do not believe is possible?

Would you hold that the command implies the ability to obey it?

I might or I might not. The answer depends on the context of the choice. Sometimes God knowingly commands behavior He knows cannot occur. Sometimes He commands behavior He knows and expects can occur. I have already answered this question with the example of Cain so I am not sure why I would be asked again but I will add this: The Law was given knowing it could not and would not be obeyed in its entirety. The Law was given knowing the breaking of any one Law was the equivalent of breaking the whole law. No one obeys the whole Law. All have sinned and fall short of God's glory.

Therefore, sometimes the command implies an inability to obey.

I don't think you would.

You, again, think incorrectly.

Yet, the disobedient are held responsible to obey, all the same.

Responsibility is different than culpability. One of the reasons sinful man is culpable is because he is responsible to obey and does not obey, but man is also culpable because he is unable to be responsible. His inability does not absolve him of accountability. His inability is no excuse. The natural man will not be able to protest and say, "Why have you made me this way?" The natural man's belief he was made that way is part of the problem to be solved.

He cannot understand or accept the things of the Spirit because he CANNOT do so.

Notice the assertion used as axiomatic, here: "Choices with only one option aren't choices." I disagree. But I will admit, you may have a different meaning/use for "option" from what I mean by it.

Please stop inventing what you imagine me to think and mean and speak for yourself. Say, "I do not understand that use of 'option,'" or "I do not know what you mean by "volitional agency' if you mean something other than an ability to choose." that way there is no insinuation I think or believe something I've never said and there's no putting words into my posts I did not write.

The assertion is mistaken.

Prove it.

But prove it in another thread because this one is about 1 Corinthians 2:14. Before you do so, I recommend Goggling, "Can a choice exist if there is only one option?" and think through both the question and the search results.


The natural man has no choice to choose the things of the Spirit. His only "choice," his only "option" is the flesh and the things of the flesh, the things of the sinful flesh. He can choose sinful flesh..... or he can choose.... sinful flesh. There is no other option. We speak of this as a "choice," but that's really a fallacy of ambiguity. The word "choice" is used incorrectly. Synergists really muck this up.

But a natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

How is this possible?

It is possible because sin kills and enslaves, adulterating the faculties of the flesh, making the sinner's mind hostile to God and unable to please God.

Why would Paul write and teach such a thing?

Because he wanted his readers to understand the power of the Spirit relevant to everything they had ever known prior to coming to Christ. Prior to the transforming work of Christ their thinking was futile, their heart darkened, and they could not understand or accept the things of the Spirit. They lived life in states of condemnation, death, and enslavement, but there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus for the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set the convert free from the law of sin and of death.

Does the natural man (the unregenerate) really not accept the things of the Spirit, and are they foolish?

Yes. Really. God is ever faithful, both to His own word and to those He saves. Let God be true and all men liars.

If so, in what way?

Read my posts .

And can these things really only be understood only by the Spirit?

The answer to that question can fill multiple posts but I have sampled many of them in this post and those above.

And, Reformed theology holds that the natural man is blind to spiritual values.....

That's good because that's what the whole of God's word teaches. When it comes to the things of the Spirit the premise of volitional agency (commonly misnamed "free will") is an inferential assumption that is nowhere stated in scripture. Although causal attribution is not often made in scripture when it comes to salvation, on those occasions where causal attribution is stated, the attribution is always to God and His will, not that of the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner's faculties.


(my apologies for the length of the post)
.