Oh, so when Paul says in I Cor. 3:1-4, that the Corinthians were milk-fed babes in Christ, that means they were not saved at all?? And when he says their being prone to strife proved they were of the flesh, he means a Christian in strife is not a Christian at all??

But then, what if 2:12 doesn't refer to salvation but spiritual gifts? Paul previews what he will review in the epistle in the first chapter, and notes spiritual gifts at v.7. Later he does teach in detail on spiritual gifts. But only after getting them to realize, that teaching on the gifts of the spirit requires spiritual maturity, even avoiding strife over gifts. 2:15 says the spiritual man judges all things but is judged by no one. Does Paul have reason to defend himself to the Corinthians? Did super teacher come along after his first experience with this church and accuse him of not meeting his true responsibility as a teacher in reviewing initially the gifts? At 12:12-47 and chp 13, is Paul telling them that after learning about spiritual gifts, they have to exercise maturity?? And if they don't, does that mean they are not saved or are merely "natural man" Christians??

Paul delayed teaching to the Corinthians on certain subjects not because they were not saved, but because they were not mature -- II Cor. 12:20.

But I realize that some Christians want to believe that I Cor. 2:14 only refers to salvation. That's what the Baptists taught me. But I had to give that interpretation up, as it does not make sense with the rest of the epistle. I do agree with the principle, as it is found in Acts 16:14, but that is not what the Corinthians verse is about.

At I Cor. 12:31, Paul tells the Corinthians to covet the best gifts. I don't think he means they should covet salvation at that point. At Ephesians 4:11, he notes evangelism as a gift.

But thank you for expressing your opinion. I merely agree to disagree with you.

M Paul