This is an altered form of the conversation between Tyler, Warren, and me on the issue of 1 Cor. 2:14:

Warren McGrew:

1 Corinthians 2:14 should not be rendered “natural”, but rather “sensuous” as in carnal… as one who has set their mind on gratifying the appetites of the body is unable to consider the deep things of God. Moreover, in Chapter 3 this is applied to Christians… revealing the deeper spiritual truths do not include believing the Gospel.

Tyler Vela:

it is literally NEVER translated that way from what I can tell. And the Greek word for sensual/sensuous is ἀσέλγεια. It means the natural/fleshly in contrast to the spirit-filled man. In Jude 19 it is coupled with those who are “devoid of the Spirit.”

Hobbes:

when do non-Christians have their minds set on the spirit?

Tyler Vela:

They don’t. That’s the point. The natural man, the one devoid of the spirit, worldly-minded, cannot accept the things of the Spirit.

Warren McGrew:

“But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ.” 1 Cor 3:1

Tyler Vela:

Thanks for showing you DONT exegete the text.
2:14 is ψυχικός.
3:1 is σάρκινος.
They are not the same word.

Can you show one verse where the majority of translations translate it as “sensual”?

Douay-Rheims Bible (whatever translation that even is) is the ONLY one who ever translates it that way and ONLY in this verse and for seemingly no exegetical reason. So can you give any exegetical reason why ALL the translations for 2000 years except this one random one got this word wrong in all its uses?
Douay-Rheims Bible is a Catholic translation from the Latin Vulgate in the 16th century.

Warren McGrew:

I don’t need to 🙂 I just demonstrated its meaning, which you’ve now affirmed. This is why Matt Slick agreed to rewrite his articles on CARM referencing this passage as a prooftext for Total Depravity.

Tyler Vela:

where did you demonstrate the meaning…? And where did I affirm it? Ha if this is how you read text, no wonder you get the Bible wrong so often.
1. I pointed to a complete lack of any translation of the term that way in any other passage except ONE 16th century translation from the Latin that no one knows about.
2. I showed that your appeal to 3:1 was false because it’s not even the same word in the text so that doesn’t help you.
So can you show a single place where any modern translations translate it that way?

Hobbes:

They were babies in the faith, so he gave them the truth of the gospel in simple form which was easy for them to take in and digest and use.
He is saying they are acting like the natural man who can not receive the things of God because they have have not matured and are still letting sin take hold.

Tyler Vela:

plus he doesn’t even fully put them in the 2:14 “natural man” camp because he won’t call them “natural” since they are not “without the Spirit” but does say that they are “fleshly” as in still giving in to fleshly ways. So he softens the charge when talking about believers since it’s not a NATURE problem (like it is with the unbeliever).

You tried citing Thayers (a wildly out of date lexicon) and the ONLY translation that ever translates it that way is the one I showed above. It’s not in the Bible that way ever. You need to demonstrate your case.

some versions translate re’em to mean UNICORN. We don’t determine the meaning of Greek terms by random English translations of other translations.
Is your position that 1 Cor 2:14 should be translated as “sensuous” despite it NEVER be translated that way in any other text, Biblical or otherwise, and not being translated that way by ANY translations, except one completely obscure 16th-century Catholic text from the Latin Vulgate (so not even from the Greek in question!)…. Is that REALLY the argument you want rather than just admit you were wrong…?

TheSire:

I think Tyler’s probably right about the passage. Warren seems to be merely trying to argue for a wider array of meanings for the term instead of the meaning in the passage. That seems to cut against the grain.

Warren McGrew:

feel free to try and prove that the word doesn’t mean sensuous in the context of 1 Corinthians 2:14, especially in light of 1 Corinthians 3:1.

TheSire:

Well, sure, verse 12 and the prior seems to give Tyler the upper hand. 12 already sets up a dualism between those having the ability because they have the spirit of God, which is contrary to having the spirit of the world.

Warren McGrew:

1 Corinthians 2:14 falls smack dab in the middle of 2:12 and 3:1… so, what’s the take away? That this isn’t a reference to being unable to understand the Gospel, but rather the deeper things of God.
But, this wasn’t the point Tyler was making. He said the Greek word has “NEVER” been used to mean “sensuous”. It clearly has 🙂

Let me give you a real-world example…
You are a believer in Christ, yes? I too am a believer in Christ. We BOTH have accepted the Gospel. Yet, here one of us is struggling to understand the deeper things of God

TheSire:

My point is that even if it was then it’s a highly less likely meaning given the lack of usage that way and the context of the passage sets up for Tyler’s interpretation.

Secondly, you can think it’s about the gospel given verses 6-9. It’s not like it isn’t in the immediate context.

Warren McGrew:

the context is what determines meaning, and as I demonstrated, the context is NOT speaking of total inability to understand and believe the Gospel. One who has set their mind on the appetites of the body is not thinking on the things of God. Even those Christians to whom Paul is writing had accepted the Gospel but could not understand the deeper things because they were still sensuous in their thinking.

TheSire:

What do you think the relationship of 6-9 is to 12-14?

Warren McGrew:

verses 6-9 are about wisdom, and deeper truths, hidden things – not the Gospel which is preached to all.
“…these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit.” is not a reference to the Gospel. The Apostles literally saw the resurrected Jesus and were taught directly by Him.

TheSire:

Why couldn’t this wisdom is given to us be the gospel? It says if they knew it and understood it then they wouldn’t have crucified the lord of glory. That seems like the gospel.

They saw him resurrected but resurrection doesn’t cause saving faith. The gospel makes that point when Jesus says they wouldn’t believe even if someone rose from the dead. At least, what I think it was trying to get at.

Warren McGrew:

Seeing your best friend and teacher, the one you believed was the Messiah brutally tortured and killed only to come back to life doesn’t cause saving faith? I’d argue that’s precisely why they were convinced unto death themselves. But I don’t want to harp on this, or try to score dunks… not my intent here.
“If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.”
Abraham was saying simple miracles can be discounted, which I would argue the faith of the Apostles was not in view here as they DID listen to Moses and the Prophets.

TheSire:

Firstly, they were given the glory of the miracles but they accepted it through divine revelation(Matthew 16:17). So, I actually think that knowledge is dependent upon divine revelation and grace to cause the person to believe it.
A resurrected person isn’t a simple miracle and the idea is that they would reject it even if the miracles occurred. The faith of the apostles wasn’t in view here but non apostles were. And they wouldn’t believe even if miracles happened. So, I don’t think they cause faith. We actually know miracles don’t cause faith because of the entire OT. Throughout the entire exodus, people saw them and all didn’t believe and Jesus’ ministry had the same issue.

Warren McGrew:

had Peter not been taught by God through the law and prophets? Isn’t this the vehicle through which the Spirit revealed the truth of Christ? Isn’t God speaking through the law and Prophets an example of divine revelation?
As for the Rich Man’s brothers… why would they reject a resurrected person? For the same reason they reject Moses and the Prophets… not some natural condition of inability they were created in, but a result of hard and rebellious hearts they carefully curated over time.

TheSire:

Yeah, God has many means of revelation.
Well, I actually disagree. Romans 1 and 2 states that man’s natural state is to deny God till changed by the gospel. People are unbelievers with knowledge of God from birth.

Warren McGrew:

where does Romans 1 or 2 say ” man’s natural state is to deny God till changed by the gospel”?

TheSire:

I think chapter 1 states everyone knows God, so why isn’t everyone then just Christian from the womb other than sin? My problem is that these kinds of theology can’t make sense of disbelief nor the universality of sin. Which is the other part of Romans 1/2 is the universality of sin tied to the knowledge of God.

Warren McGrew:

imho Scripture makes the most sense when considered from a non-Augustinian perspective. My .002

TheSire:

Okay, so why isn’t everyone a believer from the womb?

Warren McGrew:

everyone is created innocent and ignorant, reliant upon God and others… thus a primal sort of faith, utter helplessness and dependency. In this state, men are born into a sin-filled world which seeks to kill them in their mother’s womb, or corrupt and kill them after they’re born.
Man was never intended to face such things and thus we are deceived like Eve and become rebellious like Adam. Not all men want a relationship with God, and prefer the suffering and death rejecting Him brings.
However, your question assumes 2 things which are false:
1. Theological determinism
2. Total Depravity

TheSire:

I’m not sure any of that was an answer to my question. You stated that people are born innocent and stuff but that just leaves me wondering if everyone is so great from birth then why are they not faithful from the womb?

Warren McGrew:

as I said above… keep in mind, Adam and Eve didn’t hold out long in the face of temptation either.

TheSire:

Yeah, that answer just doesn’t seem germane to my question.

It’s like if I asked
“What’s your favorite kind of dog? ”
And you replied:
“Tigers are cool”

Warren McGrew:

I was demonstrating the underlying assumption within your question is faulty. That assumption is “if man isn’t born totally depraved then he wouldn’t sin”. So unless you’re arguing Adam was created TD then the answer is germane. imho

TheSire:

Yeah, while appealing to TD and original sin are just better explanations for the universality of sin and existing unbelief.

So, I’m not sure you’re answering the question but rather attacking my solution to the issue I’m raising