I got to say that it is so cool to see noted profs like Daniel B. Wallace taking the time to blog a bit—I mean really blogging.
In response to a Susan over at Parchment & Pen, prof. Wallace writes:
Susan, I appreciate your comments, but I think I should clarify: I believe that evangelicals can learn a great deal from ‘liberal’ scholars. It comes down to how we think about 1 Cor 2.14: “The natural person does not welcome the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” Many Christians think that this verse means that unbelievers can’t understand anything about the Bible. That’s not what the verse is saying, however. Instead, it is saying that unbelievers do not *welcome* the things of the Spirit of God. He understands the Bible well enough to know that he wants to reject its redemptive message. But some of the best commentaries are written by non-evangelicals (whether they are ‘liberal’ or not may be a different matter; in any event, it is often hard to tell). I have learned much from Bart Ehrman, J. K. Elliott, And David Parker, for example. And I recommend my students to study under them for their doctorates. Some of the best lexical, grammatical, historical, and even theological work has been done by unbelievers. But it always needs to be filtered through a christocentric grid. ‘Liberals’ have a lot to teach us, and we have some things to teach them, too–if they would only listen. Read post and related comments… (emphasis mine)
Well, my own conclusion has always been: Until the Holy Spirit applies the truths of Scripture to the human heart—the unbeliever doesn’t really get it, because he/she is still in an unregenerate state.
HT: Joel
About T.C. R
A Christ-follower, husband, father, shepherd-teacher, speaker, and a blogger too!
It is hard to truly consider what one doesn’t welcome. As such, an unbeliever may or may not grasp the basic message, but certainly doesn’t welcome it. And the fullness of the message, naturally, must be spiritually discerned.
My two quadrans.
Gary,
If I may appeal to the Greek word behind “welcome” as noted by Wallace, the word is often used to “welcome” someone is a hospitable manner (Matt. 10:40ff; Luke 16:9; John 4:45).
But I do believe in the prior work of the Spirit so that the unbeliever may “welcome” the message of Jesus in a saving manner.
TC, you managed to pick out the only worthwhile part of that whole thing. Thank you.
This is a little off topic, and this is in no way meant towards TC or this blog, but I just spent a half an hour reading that other stuff and realized I just wasted my time. This is what I don’t like about the blog world. I just read a bunch of stuff that makes no difference in my relationship with God and others. And some of it is stuff I read over and over. It’s hard not to get sucked in. If I only would have stayed here without straying…
Jeff
Jeff,
I guess they all need that prior work of the Spirit I mentioned.
The flip side is even with the ‘regenerate state’ of conservative scholars some have been wrong on some things, A LOT.
“Assured results of scholarship”: It should cause everyone calling themselves scholars, liberal and conservative, to wince a bit and bow their heads humbly.
Pride was the first sin, they say. It’s still doing great business.
Well, I think Paul has the basic message of salvation in mind (see 2:6ff).
I appreciate scholarship, but I know what you mean.
Well, the first part of the verse says that “The natural person does not welcome the things of the Spirit of God”, but the second part still says “And he [sic] cannot understand them” (Greek ou dunatai gnonai, “he/she/it cannot know”). Yes, the verse is “saying that unbelievers do not *welcome* the things of the Spirit of God”, but it is ALSO saying that they do not understand these things. Wallace seems to have fallen into a very simple fallacy here of assuming that the verse only means one thing, although in fact it says two separate things in its two halves. I wonder if he even read the whole verse.
As for whether the second half of the verse implies that liberal commentaries are useless, I won’t venture an opinion.
Peter,
Thiselton in his 1 Corinthians commentary speaks of the philosophical categories of Can and Cannot at this point, but from a logical standpoint (p. 270).
He concludes that “The cannot arises from the mutually incompatible horizons which cannot be engaged interactively by effort (causal, empirical can), but only by a change in one of the terms of the equation [logical can] (p. 271).
He then points to the prior work of the Spirit to achieve this kind of discernment.
I’m not sure that Thiselton isn’t being a bit too philosophical here (he always talks about incompatible horizons), but at least he has attempted to explain the second half of the verse. Wallace, it seems, has just ignored it, or translated kai as “but not”!
Peter,
Thiselton takes this philosophical approach because of the philosophical backdrop of Paul’s Corinthian – this is the assumption.
Where did you get that “but not”? It’s not in the original quote above.
I got “but not” from Wallace’s words “That’s not what the verse is saying, however. Instead, it is saying…”, in apparent direct denial of the words of Scripture which he had just quoted as “he cannot understand them”.
Ok, but I see no direct denial. Instead, I see an effort to correct a faulty reading of the verse. That’s been my interpretation of Wallace’s words.