Lesson 3 – Servants of God, I Corinthians 2:6-3:23 Introduction Not only had God designed the gospel to deny opportunity for the mighty or wise to boast, He hid the gospel from discovery and revealed it in His time. Therefore, all preachers who taught the truth only communicated the wisdom that God originated and willed for man. They spoke only what God designed. Furthermore, such men were only servants of God, commissioned by Him and sent into His vineyard. Although men play a part and must be careful how they build for God, ultimately all success and glory belongs to God – not men. Only by recognizing the fundamental source of their salvation and the many workers in God’s kingdom, would they be able to let go of their carnal ambitions and become truly wise themselves. Questions Paul describes himself as speaking “the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom of God”. Does this mean that we cannot understand the Bible? Please explain. Did the Holy Spirit give the apostles and prophets thoughts and leave it to them to frame the words? Or, did He provide the words? What does Paul claim? If carnally minded people cannot “receive” or “know… the things of the Spirit of God”, does that mean God must act on man’s mind apart from the gospel and open it to be receptive to the truth (i.e., Calvinism)? Does this limitation mandate the irresistible operation of the Holy Spirit in advance of the Word? How is the spiritually minded man “judged by no one”? How did Paul know the Corinthians were still carnally minded? Did he use supernatural, apostolic powers to judge their hearts? Why was it to exalt one preacher or teacher above another, dividing according to men? What is “the Day” in the context, and how would it “declare” each the quality of each person’s work? How will such people either suffer loss or receive a reward?
Questions Why was it important to establish the witnesses of Christ after He was resurrected? How is that information helpful to us? In what way was Paul “as … one born out of due time”? How does this affect modern, latter-day claims to apostleship and sightings of Christ? What are the consequences of accepting the doctrine that “there is no resurrection from the dead”? Please enumerate those listed by Paul. What do these prove? Given that Christ’s resurrection is established, what does the fact of His resurrection prove? Because of His resurrection, we can be confident in the resolution of what “loose ends” and promises? Who are “they”? And, why are “they baptized for the dead”? How does Paul’s question fit into the overall context? Who is the “evil company” in this context? Therefore, what be the most immediate application? Practically, how would they (and we by extension) “awake to righteousness and do not sin”? Based on the context, what is the motive behind the question raised in verse 35? How does Paul address the underlying concern – or concerns? What is the difference between the “gifts” of the first and last man? How is the natural first and then the spiritual? How do we bear the image of the “man of dust” and the “heavenly Man”? How do these truths and the origin of these two men necessitate a resurrection? If we are to “inherit the kingdom of God”, and if “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit incorruption”, what can we infer about the resurrection?
Furthermore, the only authority provided for taking the Lord’s Supper is assembling once every “first day of the week to break bread”, according to the New Testament pattern (Acts 20:7). Anything more or anything less is prohibited by the specificity of the pattern and the silence of the Scriptures. Questions If Jesus provided generic authority in the institution of the Lord’s Supper (“take … eat … drink … remember”), then by what authority can I bind where He did not bind? In the Scriptures, the Lord’s Supper is only ever observed in the evening (Matthew 26:20-29; Acts 20:7-11). Are we limited to evening observances? How about the upper room (Mark 14:15-17; Acts 20:7-11)? If examples limit, then are we limited to only observing in the evening in an upper room? What about with bright lights and preaching until midnight? If this hermeneutic cannot be followed consistently, then how can it be true, and why would you continue to follow it? Where does Acts 20:7 specify that they assembled once and broke bread once? If a group comes together for a purpose, can we necessarily assume that all of the individuals were involved in the purpose, much less equally? If so, can we assume that if a local church comes together to study the Bible that they necessarily all studied together? Following this assumption (that what is true of the group is true of all the individuals), please explain: Acts 19:29-32; I Chronicles 15:4, 15, Joshua 18:1; Numbers 8:9-10; Nehemiah 9:1-3; Acts 2:36; 3:14; 10:39, and Acts 5:21, 40-41. Please research the “fallacy of division” for more background and explanation. If I am unable to attend, would I be excused? Appendix F: Defending the Eat-Together Position Definition This position maintains that and eating together are fundamental requirements of observing the Lord’s Supper. Therefore, even if authorized, additional observances of the Lord’s Supper are