Coffee Cup Theology

The Spirit of Understanding

—

by

Brance
in

…we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. (1 Corinthians 2:12)

This verse and its surrounding context are at once a glorious promise, and a warning.

God teaches us in this passage that right understanding and joyful acceptance of his Word come only through his Spirit. Apart from his Spirit we can’t understand scripture, and we won’t accept it.

This is a glorious promise, because it says “we have received…the Spirit who is from God”. God has given us his Spirit to lead us into all truth, “that we might understand”. We have God’s promise that we can understand his Word to us! I’m not saying understanding is easy, or without effort. Elsewhere God tells us to “think over” what he has said, and he will give us understanding (2 Timothy 2:7). But he has promised that he will help us understand!

This passage is also a warning. Only two verses later the flip side of the above promise is presented.

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:14)

Anyone who does not have the Spirit of God in them, will not understand or accept the things of God. In fact, they cannot!

So be careful who you listen to. A secular scholar may be well-educated and understand language and literature, but that will only get you so far. Understanding the spiritual truth contained in the bible requires the Spirit.

And it is not only the secular scholar we must be cautious of. There is also the teacher who claims Christ’s name, but is unregenerate. Though they claim to be Christian, if they are without the Spirit, what they teach will sound wise according to worldly wisdom, but will not lead you to Christ.

I’m thinking primarily of New Age (Oprah and Eckhart Tolle) and Prosperity Gospel (Joel Osteen, T.D. Jakes, etc.) teaching. My primary test when discerning a teacher’s authenticity as a Christian teacher, is this. Does their teaching lead me to Christ and stir up my desire for more of him? Or does the teaching lead me to, and stir up my desire for, the things Christ has made (i.e. wealth, health, temporal comfort, etc.)? If a teacher doesn’t lead me to Christ for the joy of knowing him alone, then that teacher is not correctly teaching the scripture, because Jesus himself said that’s where all scripture leads (John 5:39).

I’m not suggesting that every true teacher will hit a home run with every message or teaching, but in general, their teaching should make me long for Christ, not stuff.

I would rather listen to a teacher who is less than eloquent give me Jesus, than listen to the greatest orator of our day give me trifles.

Comments

5 responses to “The Spirit of Understanding”

  1. Kevin Avatar
    Kevin

    Brance,

    Do you reference Augustine’s verbum interius? From the distinction between those who possess the spirit of understanding and those who do not, I gather the advancement of a semiotic theory of language akin to Platonism in which understanding is prior to language. It follows that interpretation is a matter of discerning the hidden meaning behind the text, the mens auctoris, perhaps. Understanding becomes a matter of stepping into another person’s shoes seeking the truth that is behind external language. The impossibility of this task is multiplied to absurdity when it becomes a matter of understanding the meaning of God. Hence, the biblical reference to the spirit of understanding which grants us the necessary access to the revelation of God, and also tells us that God is spirit, not flesh. In effect we get a neoplatonist conception of ontological levels: spirit is higher than flesh and external creations. Because spoken language is external, a matter of the body, meaning cannot be found in it alone. For meaning we must consider the inner word, what cannot be changed or given over to language. The verbum interius, as what is higher, becomes a matter of communion with God. There is no unity of language and thought; they are separate. It should be noted that this interpretation of understanding has resulted in the conviction that at our core, our soul, we can experience God in such a way that words, language, is inadequate; you may know this in one way as, “The spirit intercedes with groaning too deep for words.”

    I’m curious as to whether or not this is contrary to a further belief in a physical, bodily resurrection. If you have been trapped into accepting a system of ontological levels, as in Platonism, then the concept of sanctification, purification, along with a physical resurrection would seem to be contrary.

    Reply
  2. Brance Avatar
    Brance

    No, I was not referencing “Augustin’s verbum interius”. I had never heard of it till you mentioned it, and even after a bit of research, I’m not sure I understand exactly what Augustin was saying. To be fair to Augustin, I only read what other people were saying about what he said, I haven’t read what he said on this topic. Have you?

    No, I am not advancing a semiotic theory of language, platonism, or neoplatonism. Again, I haven’t read Plato, so I’m only responding to what I have read of other people talking about Plato, but I would say these things.

    1. I believe the reformation teaching regarding the perspicuity of the scriptures. The words themselves are important and communicate God’s truth to us. God revealed himself through written language. The Christian’s goal is not to find some mysterious hidden meaning behind the text, just a right understanding of the plain meaning of the text. Like I said in the post, the bible itself tells us to use our minds to “think over” the words and understand them. In Isaiah God invites man to “reason together” with him. The bible never encourages us to look for some secret, hidden knowledge, but rather, to submit ourselves to his revealed will.

    This is the issue addressed by the passage I was writing about. Depraved man, apart from the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit, does not and cannot accept scripture.

    “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14)

    Not because there is some hidden meaning, but because he is in open rebellion against God and refuses to accept God’s truth, to the point that it is impossible for him to understand the scripture.

    I don’t mean that an unsaved person can’t understand the words on the page. That’s not the problem. The problem is his will is so stubbornly set against God that he cannot accept the teaching of the Gospel. John Piper says it better than I.

    “It is possible to be so opposed to an idea in your heart that it becomes nothing but foolishness in your head. Many behavioral psychologists have shown that we are all prone not even to see what we don’t want to see. And just as the will can dictate that we see selectively (only what we want to see!), so the will can also dictate that we understand selectively. If we oppose an idea strongly enough, our will can create an intellectual atmosphere that makes understanding that idea virtually impossible.”

    I would refer you to two sermons of his on this passage.

    http://www.desiringgod.org/sermons/joy-exchanged-and-joy-forfeited

    http://www.desiringgod.org/sermons/how-the-spirit-helps-us-understand

    2. God’s creation is good, not to be rejected or despised. This in response to platonism (as I understand it having only read about it, not having read Plato directly). God made it, and it was good. Yes, we wrecked it with our sin, but God is going to restore it. And God himself took on flesh, and retains it forever, in the person of Jesus Christ. Which leads me to point 3.

    3. Unlike neoplatonism’s god, the God of the bible is a being who can be known, who indeed wants to be known. This is why he chose to create, why he revealed himself in his creation, why he revealed himself specifically in written form.

    So yes, if one was a platonist, then a belief in a physical resurrection would be contrary to that system of thought. I am not a platonist though. Viewing God’s creation as inherently bad, on the grounds that it is physical and not spiritual, would be contrary to the clear teaching of the bible. God’s creation, both spiritual (angels and the spirits of men) and physical (the material universe and our bodies in particular) were created good, have been corrupted by sin and subjected to the effects of being in rebellion against the Creator (sickness, death, entropy, etc.), but will be restored by God in the future, for our joy and his glory. That is very contrary to platonism.

    Reply
  3. Kevin Avatar
    Kevin

    Thanks for clarifying.

    I thought that you had read Augustine, at least from conversations we had long ago. Yes, I have read some, not all, of Augustine’s work. Some was required reading for class, and the rest has been pursued in personal interests and research. If you should find time and interest, read “De Trinitate,” On the Trinity.

    I also thought, per our conversations in the past, that you had taken up reading Plato. Tell me I’m not completely nuts, that you did at some point mention surveying Greek philosophy in some capacity. Maybe they were audio lectures?

    Anyway, I considered this matter further after I posted last night. I’m fairly certain, my knowledge of medieval philosophy does not afford better, that, contrary to what you said, not all neo-platonists viewed the physical as inherently bad because it was lesser. That is why I carefully noted in my previous post that it “seems” contrary; I was voicing my own question. I suppose it doesn’t matter, since you don’t profess any such idea.

    The problem of understanding is a difficult and much debated topic in philosophy. Much of my personal reading has revolved around the subject. This blog post has been thought provoking, I thank you for that. Unfortunately, what you have said has effectively put an end to our conversation’s genuine potential.

    Reply
  4. Lauren Avatar
    Lauren

    Hi Kevin!!! It’s been so long since we’ve seen you and so many others from back in the days when Brance was “Pops”. I hope you are doing well! We are planning a trip to VA, as a family, sometime this summer and would love to see some of you guys.

    p.s. Sorry I dive-bombed your conversation! You two can resume 😉

    Reply
  5. Brance Avatar
    Brance

    Hey Kevin,

    I’ve read some of Augustine’s work, but not on this particular topic. I’ve read “City of God” and some of “The Confessions”. I should probably finish the later and add “On The Trinity” to my, already quite lengthy, reading list.

    No, you’re not completely nuts. 🙂

    I have read a good bit of Aristotle. I’ve read several books, like R.C. Sproul’s “The Consequences of Ideas”, which summarize the thoughts of various philosophers. Sproul’s book includes a chapter on Plato. And I did listen to Sproul’s lecture series on the history of philosophy.

    If I were to add Plato to my reading list, what do I start with? “The Republic”, “The Dialogues”, or some other volume? Give me some guidance here!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.