Did Jesus Die on The Cross for The Just/Elect/Saved Whose Names Are Written in The Book of Life OR

[selahsays]

The natural man has been described in this thread with Biblical passages for many days going on weeks and likely months.[/QUOTE]
…
@Magenta
Yes, I know. Thanks.

 

[notmyown]

…but wasn’t @notmyown referring to faithful people?—those who have the faith to know that our Father will always be faithful to keep His promises to those who love Him?

yes. yes, she was.

the idea the writer to the Hebrews is talking about any other kind of people in chapter 11 is untenable.

 

[notmyown]

So, a fallen person can please God without knowing the gospel..

without faith, it is impossible to please God.

buut i suppose we humans think we have all sorts of power we do not possess.

 

[HeIsHere]

What exactly is “the natural man”?

Just because some people believe and assert St. Augustine's view does not mean he was correct, he saw himself as a complete degenerate and read that into scripture.

Natural man whose spirit is not connected to God, he is separated (dead) by the consequences of the fall.
Natural does not mean evil and Paul is not juxtaposing sinner versus saint in his letter to the Corinthians.
The Calvinist view is way out of line with the intent of the letter, the distinction is between “human wisdom” and “divine revelation.”

It is, of course, quite common to hear the view that the “natural” man is the unregenerated sinner who is so enslaved in sin as to be unable to apprehend the gospel of God unless “illuminated” by a direct operation of the Holy Spirit.The sad reality is, it is difficult to locate many scholars who have not been tainted with Calvin’s views of this matter (cf. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975, Vol. I, Bk. II, 19-20)

 

[HeIsHere]

without faith, it is impossible to please God.

buut i suppose we humans think we have all sorts of power we do not possess.

Faith is not a power.

 

[HeIsHere]

No. The natural man is the man (whether regenerate or not) whose physical body, with its instincts and emotions, is driving him for the time being. His mind is set on what his instincts and physical appetites consider important.

The spiritual man is the man (whether regenerate or not) whose spirit, with it's focus on abstract characteristics like love, peace, and truth, is driving him for the time being. That man can be discerning the evidence for God and be trusting in the light he has from God, the Light that lights every man who comes into the world. That man can please God by choosing to put his faith in the light he has been thus far given, even if that light does not yet include the gospel.

Rom. 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel ...

26Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

27And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

28For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.


Rom. 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

I am thinking carnally minded is not the same as natural man.

 

[Mem]

I am thinking carnally minded is not the same as natural man.

I agree as carnal and spiritual are descriptive of the mind. The word 'soulish' comes to mind, but I have no clear recollection of where I picked that term up to see the context in which it is intended to be defined. It would seem to me that it should be all inclusive considering that when 'Adam became a living soul' he had been given possession of all living body, mind, and spirit.

Natural man and natural body are not th same thing. The natural body is the physical body we are born with that is enlivened by the blood. Remove the blood and the body is dead.
The spiritual body is the physical body clothed upon with the heavenly body received at physical death. Like Jesus' resurrection body of flesh and bone without any need for blood, but enlivened by the spirit, our resurrection bodies will also be enlivened directly from the spirit: a spiritual body. The seed sown is physical, and the plant that comes up after the seed dies is physical. So too, the natural body and spiritual body are both physical, but the latter has greater glory.

I believe it to be a relevant application to the understanding of the resurrection that the new body resemble the body from which the seed fell.

 

[studier]

But you keep ignoring

I really haven't ignored much of anything, no matter how unbiblical it is, until I've seen how impossible it is to discuss actual Scripture in context.

I have begun to ignore some of your writing. I'm ignoring what you say after this above statement. You don't seem to realize that at some point of watching you ignore Scripture, it just becomes monotonous. I'm resolved for you to end up seeing my discussing Scripture in the same way.

Don't feel singled-out. I'm beginning to ignore some others also. When someone starts telling me I don't know God because I might not ask Him to charge, or replace, or miraculously resolve my dead car-battery issue, it's coming to be time to move on. When I was a pup I unknowingly tried and presumed upon God many times in many ways. He's taught me experientially and through His Word and/namely Spirit how to relate to Him. I work with Him daily to grow in that relationship and in understanding His Word.

Honestly, I laid out some very basic definitions and observations from several verses in Rom1 that I read as putting your argument to shame. All you have to do is look at each verse and tell me where I'm wrong in the definitions I pulled from one of the best Lexical resources we have. I'm prepared to discuss Scripture with you about faith or any important topic we both - mutually - care to discuss. But it must be a discussion about actual Scripture and the words God has used to speak to us.

My concern is that you seem to have no appreciation for God's ability to provide for and work with fallen human nature. He can create a universe and breath life into a pile of dirt and minerals. He can raise people from the dead and provide an entirely new race of human being in the process of becoming what we can barely begin to comprehend. Yet, if we listen to your thinking, He is unable to get into the mind and soul of a spiritually dead, but living human being, what He wants that being to fully understand and to choose to accept or reject. It makes no sense whatsoever.

The Word of God is our standard. None of our opinions are. This should be a discussion to get to the meaning of actual Scripture without having to wade through one another's sometimes bizarre analogies with mind-boggling proof-texting that are supposed to be accepted without even cautious hesitation. Simply put, you're posting to the wrong person if you think I'll accept your methodology and the error I see that comes from it.

It's the Text, Rufus. It's called the "canon" (kanōn) for a reason.

 

[studier]

no problem In many of Pauls epistles he is giving his audience a history lesson, a more obvious example is in 1 Corinthians where Paul says:

“1Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. 5But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.”
1 Corinthians 10:1-5

Paul reveals to is us, reading 2000 years later, that the Corinthians, being Dorians Greeks, were descended from the ancient Israelites, although at that time, it was common knowledge that the Greeks were the Israelite dispersion, explained just by Jewish historian Josephus, but the Pharisees reveal this in thrir concern of Jesus going to the uncircumcised Greeks in John 7:35:

“The Jews said to one another, “Where does this man intend to go that we cannot find him? Will he go where our people live scattered among the Greeks, and teach the Greeks?”

Thanks.

I think the context and wording of Romans is pretty clear that Paul is speaking as usual to a mixed audience. I also see from what I've read that the Roman congregation was extensively Gentile. Some of the analysis of the language in Rom1:13-14 that I've read concludes a Gentile leaning.

I also see Rom1 to be speaking of mankind, not specifically Jews, but inclusive of them.

I glanced through what @Rufus said about the Greek word used and it seems sound to me. It is attested to in Greek literature as having the basic meaning of reneging on one's word; being faithless (in the same sense of not keeping ones word). It is not limited to Israel but applies to all people. Maybe it's limited use in Scripture is God pointing out to us the main example of men not keeping their word, would be those who had a covenant with God and reneged on it.

 

[HeIsHere]

Have you never had your heart and mind stayed upon the Lord? Have you never cast all your cares upon God? And then actually let Him work them all out? Have you never known the intimacy of being bourne along by God moment by moment?
I fear I am describing things you have not experienced, an intimacy and spiritual reality you are unfamiliar with. It's an ongoing presence of God as real as the things you can see and touch.
It's not that I don't understand that you live constantly making decisions about what to do. I lived the majority of my Christian life that way, trying to do my best and trying to figure out what to do as life happens. But I'm suggesting to you that there is more to a relationship with God than what you have experienced. There is a life with God hidden in Christ that is a life in His presence.
Just on the off chance I'm right, ask God to see if it is so for you.

The life hidden in Christ is about living in/yielding to Truth, not about everyday temporal choices, although the choices we make should reflect the hidden life.

 

[HeIsHere]

My concern is that you seem to have no appreciation for God's ability to provide for and work with fallen human nature.

My concern is how this system defines/interprets/presupposes "fallen human nature" " faith" "elect" "slave to sin" incorrectly to make it all fit.

I saw this on X (Twitter) I think it shows the absurdity of the doctrine.

Pre-regeneration we are dead and our nature is unable choose (dead and some even with a second dose of blindedness just in case being dead is not enough)
When God regenerates us we have a new nature, like the blind being given sight/pricks the ear/spiritual hearing.
With the new nature the Gospel is irresistible and therefore we choose freely. Calvinism.
God is sovereign and we chose to choose so God can say He gave us a choice.

 

[Cameron143]

The life hidden in Christ is about living in/yielding to Truth, not about everyday temporal choices, although the choices we make should reflect the hidden life.

You can't live out truth outside of your temporal reality. The proof of your belief is how you live. Part of this is how you respond to the happenings of life.
What do you believe it means to wait on the Lord?

 

[HeIsHere]

You can't live out truth outside of your temporal reality. The proof of your belief is how you live. Part of this is how you respond to the happenings of life.
What do you believe it means to wait on the Lord?

We have had this discussion. One's life can be/should be evidence but not proof.

There is a distinction in scripture between salvation and discipleship, if discipleship was automatic then there be no need for all the exhortation we read in scripture.

There is the ideal that we should do as believers and some fail and God lets them fail and even may die failing we do not always know why.

 

[studier]

Among the Roman citizens were Isrselites of the dispersion which to them, the gospel made sense, them being the “other flock” Jesus spoke about, “sheep who hear his voice” and Paul being the minister unto the nations, who no doubt was using the OT prophets as a witness to the ministry of Jesus and the foretold “good news” that God was calling back his “divorced bride” I tend to believe that this ministering called out to “sheep” whereas to them that were perishing it was non sense.

There is also historical evidence that points to the Roman origin through the line of Zerah, i will post those sources in another post. In the epistles of Paul, as i used 1 Corinthians 10 as an example, he frequently links his readers back to ancient Israelites but something to consider is his use of the word “brethren” which in our time is a common word of salutation which usually does not confirm a familial connection but in Pauls time this was not a term used loosely.

Brethren / the greek Adelphos
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 80: ἀδελφός

ἀδελφός, (οῦ, ὁ (from ἆ copulative and δελφύς, from the same womb; cf. ἀγάστωρ) (from Homer down);

but more importantly, as used by a Hebrew

2. according to a Hebrew use of אָח (Exodus 2:11; Exodus 4:18, etc.), hardly to be met with in secular authors, having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, countryman

When reading Paul,in context, i believe that his usage of words are very intentional, for instance if he chooses the word “brethren - adelphos” as a Hebrew, his audience have a common father, a national kinship and even though he makes more direct connections of kinship, such as 1 Corinthians 10, i interpret his use of the word “brethren - adelphos” to describe fellow Israelites and of the “nations” the dispersion of many that God promised Abraham

More info than I just responded to.

Paul uses "adelphos" 133 times in the manuscript I just searched. It looks like you've got your work cut out for you to prove that he uses it to speak to Hebrews. There's also his teaching that there is no Jew or Greek in Christ, so it seems a tough sell at this point.

 

[Genez]

What exactly is “the natural man”?

The Greek word psuchikos is where we derived the word psychiatry.
It pertains to the soul.

The "psuchikos man"/"soul-ish man" is having no human spirit, only body and soul = unregenerate.

Some claim we are born with a human spirit, but I try my best to avoid them for its brainwashing they are after.

The natural man is not what the Greek says, but what those translating from the Greek conclude.

The unregenerate man is body and soul.
The regenerate man is body, soul, and human spirit.

.... Remember we are caught up in an invisible war. One that fights to make simple concepts to appear confusing!

Soul and body = natural man. No human spirit. ​

The natural man can not grasp Bible doctrine because one must be spiritually capable to do so.

 

[Cameron143]

We have had this discussion. One's life can be/should be evidence but not proof.

There is a distinction in scripture between salvation and discipleship, if discipleship was automatic then there be no need for all the exhortation we read in scripture.

There is the ideal that we should do as believers and some fail and God lets them fail and even may die failing we do not always know why.

You are correct. I should have said possible evidence. You still missed my question. What does it mean to wait upon the Lord?

 

[studier]

There is no error in my Death Analogy. After all, Natrual Man is filled with natural understanding and zero spiritual understanding

I know you think you have no error in your analogy, but Romans 1 seems to clearly disagree with you. So, as they say, I freely choose Scripture.

If you think the information Paul says natural man knows about God is simply natural understanding, or understanding of nature and not about God who is Spirit, then I disagree with you. You're misreading at minimum 1Cor2:14, which we've already been through.

 

[HeIsHere]

You are correct. I should have said possible evidence. You still missed my question. What does it mean to wait upon the Lord?

I have no definitive understanding really, not sure that "wait" is a time thing but just thinking from my experience and other scripture it connects to being a state of "rest and trusting Him, having confidence that God will see a person through.

I am sure there is more considering it is stated in scripture often.

 

[Mem]

Some claim we are born with a human spirit, but I try my best to avoid them for its brainwashing they are after.

Ah, so! This answers my earlier question, thank you. I was at a loss as to why you couldn't answer me directly, but now I see that you "try your best to avoid them." I will keep your preference in mind and refrain from causing you such unnecessary exertion any further.

 

[studier]

My concern is how this system defines/interprets/presupposes "fallen human nature" " faith" "elect" "slave to sin" incorrectly to make it all fit.

I saw this on X (Twitter) I think it shows the absurdity of the doctrine.

Pre-regeneration we are dead and our nature is unable choose (dead and some even with a second dose of blindedness just in case being dead is not enough)
When God regenerates us we have a new nature, like the blind being given sight/pricks the ear/spiritual hearing.
With the new nature the Gospel is irresistible and therefore we choose freely. Calvinism.
God is sovereign and we chose to choose so God can say He gave us a choice.

Agree, and I think we've seen some similar nonsense in this thread.

I was doing some things this a.m. that provided for some time to plug in someone's teaching Rom1. He was making the point of how some personalities cannot seem to just let Scripture say what it says and come up with all kinds of philosophies and creative thoughts and how these just end up being more suppression of truth per 1:18. It somehow sounded very familiar...