What 3 verses say that a lost man cannot believe the gospel?

Actually the Gentiles could not remain Gentiles and be saved. They had to adopt the laws of Moses as their rule of life thereby placing themselves under the law of Moses.


Joy unspeakable full of glory

 

You'll have to give more context for me to follow. Is this something you believe now or are you commenting on how the Galatians were taught in error? I am a gentile in today's world and I've never been taught to place myself under the Law of Moses to be saved - can I read Gal 3:13 from God's Living Word today and be grateful for being redeemed from the curse of the Law or should I go "phew, glad i never was under that curse" ?

 

Okay? You really think there's an important distinction between the phrases here that you had to point it out? I meant them interchangeably but since you see some nuance between them, do tell what the difference is between 'setting your mind on spiritual things' and 'attending to spiritual things' that would amount to completely distinct conclusions.

I suggested this? Where? If anything, I was agreeing that those indwelt by the Spirit and who belong to Christ can still be fleshly/of the flesh.

This is what I do disagree with. You picked 1Cor 3 to equate fleshly/carnal men indwelt by the Spirit and belonging to Christ with being unregenerate? What is your definition of unregenerate? I hold it to mean that they have not yet been born of the Spirit and have no indwelling Spirit of Christ - do you hold it to mean something different? So by definition, 1Cor 3 is not speaking to unregenerates at all. Are you mixing up the meaning with simply being degenerate?

 

Where? Which phrase(s) in Rom 8:9 is suggesting that those of/by the flesh can set their minds on the things of the Spirit?

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.

This is one of the key premises on which Paul builds his argument to uphold v.4 - if the above isn't strictly true, then his argument falls flat. They who walk by the flesh are mentally inclined/set their mind/do mind the things of the flesh - and those who walk by the Spirit the things of the Spirit. Does Paul here give room to draw out an extra-biblical premise that they who walk by the flesh set their mind on also the things of the Spirit?

Where does it say this? The setting of mind is on the things of the flesh or on the things of the Spirit - where are you reading this new setting their mind on their Spirit? What does that even mean - to set one's mind on your own spirit that would be distinct from setting one's mind on the things of the Spirit?

1Co 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit:

The external information was not seen, nor heard, neither has entered into the hearts until it was revealed by His Spirit. And how?

1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

Why did we receive the Spirit of God -> so that we may know the spiritual things / things of the Spirit.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Because they are 'of the Spirit' discerned - not 'of the flesh'.

Do you not see that Paul is appealing to and exhorting all who walk by the flesh on the very grounds that they have the Spirit 1Cor 3:16, Gal 3:2 ? Having the Spirit of Christ is the distinction between the regenerate and the unregenerate.

 

My views are consistently misrepresented by Calvinists, so I like it when my view is quoted to ensure something else is not being introduced. Every time you see a Calvinist claim I believe in "innate faith" you see me being misrepresented by something much less than an accurate presentation.

You just did it again, addressing the indwelt but ignoring "men of flesh" (the never indwelt}

Not what 1 Corinthians 3:1-3 says. Three separate adverbial phrases appear in the text, covering three types of people, (1) the "spiritual ones" (2) the unregenerate "men of flesh" and (3) recently indwelt Christians who have not yet matured to the point they can handle "spiritual solid food" (meat). You seem to seek to nullify the teaching by conflation.

 

Have you ever done this: "everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart"?
Did you respond by doing this: "If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you"?

I think a call for universal literalism when reading scripture is misguided.
Y(one eyed)MMV

 

Here is the NASB verse: Rom 8:9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.

Did anyone say Paul's presentation was not "strictly true? Nope. The issue is what are we to make of "in the flesh" and "in the Spirit." The idea (I believe) is that something is exercising power or influence over the individual. So "in the flesh" refers to someone with their mind set on fleshly desires and therefore the flesh is exercising influence over the individual. On the other hand, those "in the Spirit" refers to someone with their mind set on spiritual things and therefore MIGHT be being influenced by the indwelt Spirit of Christ. If indeed, the Spirit of God dwells in them.

I see I was not clear, when I said "their Spirit" with a capital "S." my bad, I meant their INDWELT Spirit.

Did anyone say the gospel was not presented to them, or that the gospel is not the work product of the Holy Spirit, or that God the Father did not draw them. Nope - so yet another strawman.

Off topic fluff, the issue is what unregenerate people are able to do before being indwelt.

Once again you are misrepresenting the issue. People who have not been indwelt cannot understand "spiritual things." This is not the issue. The issue, for the umpteenth time is whether "spiritual things" refers to "all spiritual things" or "some spiritual things?" And the answer from 1 Corinthians 3:1-3 is some spiritual things (spiritual solid food).

Non-germane fluff (1 Corinthians 3:16), we are discussing the abilities of those not indwelt, so to muddle the water with verses describing the indwelt is to practice obfuscation.

Final point, sometimes when a Calvinist cites a verse supposedly supporting his view, the verse actual demonstrates the Calvinist premise is false. Such a case is Galatians 3:2:

"This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?" (NASB)​

Here is yet another verse that plainly says the unregenerate can understand the gospel, just like 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, Romans 8:9 and many others.

There is no actual support for the TULI of Calvinism in scripture.

 

ivdavid, thank you for your response to my post but not to my point. I had responded to Van and his commentary on a particular verse or statement of the scriptures.

4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

This is a true statement because it is written in the scriptures. It would be true in any chapter in the Bible if God would have inserted it in it. If God would have inserted it in Gen 8, or Daniel 5, of Hosea 6 or 2 Thess 3 or Rev 20, it would be true. It would not make any sense in those contexts, but it would be true. Preachers could preach a topical sermon using this verse for their points and maybe title their sermon, "the weakness of the flesh," for instance, and not be concerned with the immediate context and there would be nothing wrong with that. Preachers do it all the time. But on this forum we are debating Calvinism (Reformed) and Armininism. Context is crucial because the foundations of Christianity are at stake.

You did not even consider my point and you did not deal with it. You went topical on me. Galatians 3 is in a different context than Romans 8. The Christian faith is rooted in the Jewish law. The political system of Israel was under the laws of God and gentiles had nothing to do with it. Gentiles were ruled under the governments of their own lands.Gentile national rulers were accountable to God but they ruled under the principle of conscience of right and wrong that was written in their DNA and not on paper and not because God had met with them to tell them anything. Israel, OTOH was governed directly by God through the written law, prophets, kings, visions, dreams, theophanies, and such like. The religion of Israel came directly from God and they were the only people through whom and to whom it came. They practiced it for 1500 years with a desire to please God by observing it but without the power to keep it. The law of God condemned the best Jew who ever lived as a sinner, until Jesus came. That is what Romans 7 says and that is the experience and the frustration that is noted by the author of Romans. The continual observance of the law as given by Moses under the power of the flesh in an attempt to attain righteousness is the definition of "walking in the flesh." Any gentile who ever tried it had to become a Jew to do it. Few did.

God did not change his mind about saving the world through Israel even though they refused to receive him as their king when he was born into their family in the flesh and they crucified him as recorded in the gospels and they refused him as their savoir when he was "born of the Spirit," raised from the dead, and sent his Spirit to give life as recorded in the Acts.

Matt 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

Jesus Christ did not become the head of the corner because Israel rejected him, but in spite of their rejection of him. His purpose for Israel was to birth them into the family of God as children of God and as one and then evangelize the nations through them. Obviously this did not happen because of the rejection by the rulers of Israel, but he took the remnant of Israel as the foundation of his church and added gentiles who believe in him, making both together a corporate entity that is different from Israel.The outward and visible part of this kingdom is not a reality during this dispensation of God as it would have been had Israel repented, but it will be in the "world to come." At this time it is the kingdom of God in it's mystery form and the King is away.

We have this laid out in Rom 7 thru 11. We have reasons given in these chapters for God's actions and responses. God has not attempted to do something he can't do, such as save all of Israel and not just a remnant, and put them over all the other nations of the world with Jesus Christ reigning from Jerusalem, and he says so in these chapters. Your Calvinism will never allow you to see the truths of God because your entire religious structure denies the foundations of the faith. The OT may as well not to have been written as far as the Reformed are concerned, or at least most of them. You could never accept the fact that men and nations and peoples can and do reject the will of God and suffer consequences in proportion to their responsible knowledge.

Matt 11:21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

Your Reformed religious system is set up on topical application of words and phrases and if they cannot be found in scripture, as is often the case, you make them up. Context is ignored because it must be to teach your doctrines. Many of your doctrines are unreasonable and do not match the human experience. Some of them are just plain silly.

When this world is over, and it soon will be, God will at that time accomplish his purpose of his kingdom though a converted Israel just like is taught in the OT prophets that most Reformed people relegate to figurative nonsense. He says he will do and it is a mystery to unbelievers who cannot figure context out.

Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.
29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

God is going to save all Israel, he says, but it is after the fullness of the gentiles is realized.

It all makes sense if context is honored.

 

You really have an inability to rightly divide the word. I don’t know anything about you but this much is evident. I’ll try to be more gentle with you moving forward.


Joy unspeakable full of glory

 

This is common knowledge. Just ask Archangel.


Joy unspeakable full of glory

 

And The Gospel Message to the Gentiles Was Made Irresistible to some, in addition to some Jews.

 

Then, there are, "the rest".

"The Election", that is, Elect men, "hath obtained it", Righteousness and Eternal Life; "and the rest were blinded", Romans 11:5,7.

 

One is more than enough.

Then, there are, "the rest".

"The Election", that is, Elect men, "hath obtained it", Righteousness and Eternal Life; "and the rest were blinded", Romans 11:5,7.

 

He gave you three.
You could have said ,"Thanks for your "valiant" effort." but there is not much clearer that does not beg to be twisted.

 

Warning: This is a Test called, "Do you Love This God of The Bible?"

That is what makes it, "a test".


His By Grace--"John Gill: A Body of Doctrinal & Practical Divinity"-Doctrinal Book 2, Chapter 3

A Body of Doctrinal & Practical Divinity

By John Gill

Doctrinal Divinity~Book 2

Chapter 3:

Of The Decree Of Rejection, Of Some Angels,
And Of Some Men

2a. First, I shall prove that there is a non-election, or rejection of some of the sons of men, when others were chosen; and, indeed, from the election of some, may fairly be inferred, the non-election of others. Common sense tells us, that of persons or things, if some are chosen, others must be left: if there is a remnant of the sons of men, according to the election of grace, then there are others not included in it, which are left unchosen, and are called the rest.

"The election", that is, elect men, "hath obtained it", righteousness and eternal life; "and the rest were blinded", #Ro 11:5,7.

Our Lord says, "I speak not of you all; I know whom I have chosen", #Joh 13:18 plainly intimating, that all were not chosen, and it is certain one was not,

and whom he calls "the son of perdition";

one, not only deserving of it, but appointed to it;

for though chosen to an office, as an apostle,
yet not to grace and glory, #Joh 17:12

and how many such there be, no man can pretend to say; but it is evident there are some, and who are generally described by negative characters;

as not known by God and Christ; the elect are God's people, whom he knows;

they are elect, according to his foreknowledge;

which carries in it love and affection to them;

but of others Christ says, "I never knew you";

he knew them by his omniscience, but not with such knowledge as he knows the elect of God;

he never knew them as the objects of his Father's love, and his own;

he never knew them as the objects of his Father's choice, and his own;

he never knew them in the gift of his Father to him, #Mt 7:23 hence they are represented as "not" loved, which is meant by being hated:

"Esau have I hated"; that is, had not loved him, as he had Jacob;

for it cannot be understood of positive hatred, for God hates none of his creatures, as such, only as workers of iniquity;

but of negative hatred, or of not loving him;

which, in comparison of the love he bore to Jacob, might be called hatred: in which sense the word is used in #Lu 14:26.

Moreover, they are spoken of as "not" being given to Christ;

for if there are some that are "given" to him "out of the world", then there must be a world which are not given, and for whom he has not so much concern as even to pray for them, #Joh 17:6,9 they are frequently described, as not having their names written, and not to be found written in the Lamb's book of life, #Re 13:8 17:8 20:15.

 

Fair enough.

This explanation helps me better understand how you're interpreting but are we now down to discussing how to parse basic language syntax? All 3 adjective phrases are being applied entirely and simultaneously to the same target group that's being addressed, namely the Corinthian Church - one adjective phrase as a negative contrasted against two equivalent phrases. There aren't 3 separate groups being addressed there. The ones who are not spiritual are the very same ones who are of the flesh and infants in Christ.

1Co 3:2 I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready,
1Co 3:3 for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way?
1Co 3:16 Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you?
1Co 3:23 and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's.

As per your reading, does the "you" in the above verses refer to the very same set of people? yes/no.
And if no, how does language work to rightly address the respective groups without misapplying truths? For it would be unfaithful of Paul to mislead the unregenerate men of flesh into thinking that God's Spirit dwells in them and that they are Christ's.

 

Here is the passage from the NASB:
Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me.
But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.

Now the various English translations are split, with those leaning Calvinistic omitting "of" and rewriting it "My sheep."

However, the rest include "of" such as the KJV, NKJV, NASB, WEB, and YLT. You would think Calvinists would not consider a "questionable" translation choice but since there is not actual support, we get the altered version.

What is the difference between "not of My sheep" and "not My sheep?" "Of My sheep" refers not to those who already belong to Christ, but to those who are open and receptive to God's word who may in the future become "My sheep." When Jesus speaks of the fields white for harvest, He is speaking of the same group, open and receptive to God's word.

 

Notice the verse you skipped, it is in red, and the phrase you seem to be seeking to nullify is also bolded.

In verse 2, Paul is speaking to new Christians, not yet ready for spiritual solid food.
They of course are not the same as "spiritual ones" who have matured to the point where they can handle spiritual solid food.
But these new immature Christs are the same as some men of flesh in this respect only, they too are able to understand spiritual milk.

I am sure you actually understand all of this, so your absurd take is simply obfuscation

 

Except a few verses later (in every translation) the Father GAVE THEM TO HIM ... that is why they are "His Sheep" or "Of His Sheep" as contrasted with those that do not believe BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT "His sheep" or "of His sheep".

 

Verse 10:27 in the NASB says "My sheep" so the Father has given those who are "My sheep" to Christ, by putting them spiritually in Christ.

Therefore this effort to nullify scripture in the name of Calvinism has no basis in reality.

John 8:47
“He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.”

Shall we edit out "of" here? Of course not. Once again those who are "of God" and "of My sheep" are those open and receptive to God's word. Pretty simple concept, really.