Did Jesus Die on The Cross for The Just/Elect/Saved Whose Names Are Written in The Book of Life OR
- Thread starter MerSee
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
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)
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)
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.
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.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
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.
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.
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.
-
1
- Show all
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.
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.
-
1
- Show all
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
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!
The natural man can not grasp Bible doctrine because one must be spiritually capable to do so.
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.
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.
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.
-
1
- Show all
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.
I am sure there is more considering it is stated in scripture often.
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.
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...
-
1
- Show all