Can Non Calvinists Believe the Gospel Of The Kingdom? Is that Even Possible?

[Silverhair]

You seem not to have answered the fat that Paul not only says that the natural man cannot receive the things of God, but he also cannot even know them. How then can the natural man believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved? Is such a thing not a thing of God?"

You have focused on one verse but ignore the rest of scripture. Paul also said the gospel is the power of God for salvation, also those that hear and respond to that gospel will be saved also if they would confess and believe they would be saved. So if what you think is true then Paul was lying as none of those things could be true.

But you also have failed to read that verse in it's context. Which seems to be a common problem on this board.

The context shows us that Paul is comparing the saved, spiritual man, and unsaved, natural man.

Note his words on vs 6 "Among the mature, {saved} however, we speak a message of wisdom—but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing."

Which he carries on in vs 7-8 "No, we speak of the mysterious and hidden wisdom of God, which He destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it. For if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

What are the mysteries that natural man does not understand, the same one that new Christians do not fully understand. Vs 9-10 "
Rather, as it is written: “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no heart has imagined, what God has prepared for those who love Him. But God has revealed it to us by the Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God."

Those that are indwelt by the Spirit of God can know the mysteries of God vs 12

So Dave it is not that the natural man cannot accept them it is that he will not accept the reality of God and salvation through faith in Him. Thus because he has not trusted in God he cannot understand the mysteries of God.

 

[Silverhair]

I did not see where Silverhair said either of those two things. And no, I don't believe either of those, unless we're talking about babies and children too young or people too incapacitated to understand much of anything, much less believe the Gospel.

That is just @canadyjd hobby horse.

By his logic none of the OT saints were saved and as you pointed out no babies or mentally handicapped could ever be saved.

He just seems to have a lower view of the power and love of God than I do.

 

[Paleouss]

The context shows us that Paul is comparing the saved, spiritual man, and unsaved, natural man.

Note his words on vs 6 "Among the mature, {saved} however, we speak a message of wisdom—but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing."

Silverhair, praise be to God for this glorious day. I hope your day has been a good one.

I noticed that you and @David Lamb were referring to 1Corinthians 2 and thought I might chime in uninvited. There are some things in which I fully agree with my Calvinist brothers on...and others I don't. How to read 1 Corinthians 2 is one in which I disagree with them.

The first point that I want to make regarding 1 Corinthians 2:14, and is frequently overlooked, is that the context of the verse starts back in 1Cor 2:6 with “wisdom among those who are mature”. This context, which is largely ignored and the proper context in which the verse 1Corinthians 2:14 refers, imo, is very important in understanding what Paul was actually saying. This context of “mature” wisdom is like the concept that Paul develops in 1 Corinthians of “solid food” (1Cor 3:2, also Heb 5:12, 14) that is contrasted against the wisdom for “newborn babes” (1Pet 2:2) , i.e., “milk” (1Cor 3:1-3, Heb 5:12, 14).

I see the progression going like this...
1. Paul is chastising the Corinthians for not progressing spiritually (starts in 1Cor 1:10).
2. One should eventually grow to a “wisdom among those who are mature” (1Cor 2:6) and this "wisdom of the mature" is what Paul is speaking.
3. This kind of maturing leads to the digestion of mature spiritual solid foods (1Cor 3:2, Heb 5:12, Heb 5:14).
4. These mature spiritual solid foods are not digestible by those new in Christ or the natural man (1Cor 2:14), i.e., the carnal minded.
5. Since babes in Christ are still like the carnal minded (1Cor 3:2-3), i.e., natural man, they cannot yet digest spiritually solid foods. That which Paul is speaking, i.e, mature wisdom.
6. Therefore, if you are stuck in being like babes in Christ and not maturing to more solid foods, then you, like the natural man, cannot digest and understand the the more spiritually mature foods that you should have progressed toward already.

*** Paul is saying that the wisdom of the mature cannot be understood by the carnal minded (which no-one would dispute)...which are what babes in Christ still are (1Cor 3:2-3), i.e., carnal minded that need spiritual milk and cannot be fed mature food.

Paul is not intending to paint a picture that the natural man does not receive and understand some glimpses of the divine grace (just as John Calvin claims that the natural man does receive such).

There is therefore some knowledge even in the reprobate, which afterwards vanishes away, either because it did not strike roots sufficiently deep, or because it withers, being choked up. (Calvin Commentaries Hebrews 6:4)

Paul is saying that the carnal man and those new in Christ cannot understand the more mature wisdom of the Spirit. Which everyone would agree with, imo.

Peace to you brother

 

[Silverhair]

Silverhair, praise be to God for this glorious day. I hope your day has been a good one.

I noticed that you and @David Lamb were referring to 1Corinthians 2 and thought I might chime in uninvited. There are some things in which I fully agree with my Calvinist brothers on...and others I don't. How to read 1 Corinthians 2 is one in which I disagree with them.

The first point that I want to make regarding 1 Corinthians 2:14, and is frequently overlooked, is that the context of the verse starts back in 1Cor 2:6 with “wisdom among those who are mature”. This context, which is largely ignored and the proper context in which the verse 1Corinthians 2:14 refers, imo, is very important in understanding what Paul was actually saying. This context of “mature” wisdom is like the concept that Paul develops in 1 Corinthians of “solid food” (1Cor 3:2, also Heb 5:12, 14) that is contrasted against the wisdom for “newborn babes” (1Pet 2:2) , i.e., “milk” (1Cor 3:1-3, Heb 5:12, 14).

I see the progression going like this...
1. Paul is chastising the Corinthians for not progressing spiritually (starts in 1Cor 1:10).
2. One should eventually grow to a “wisdom among those who are mature” (1Cor 2:6) and this "wisdom of the mature" is what Paul is speaking.
3. This kind of maturing leads to the digestion of mature spiritual solid foods (1Cor 3:2, Heb 5:12, Heb 5:14).
4. These mature spiritual solid foods are not digestible by those new in Christ or the natural man (1Cor 2:14), i.e., the carnal minded.
5. Since babes in Christ are still like the carnal minded (1Cor 3:2-3), i.e., natural man, they cannot yet digest spiritually solid foods. That which Paul is speaking, i.e, mature wisdom.
6. Therefore, if you are stuck in being like babes in Christ and not maturing to more solid foods, then you, like the natural man, cannot digest and understand the the more spiritually mature foods that you should have progressed toward already.

*** Paul is saying that the wisdom of the mature cannot be understood by the carnal minded (which no-one would dispute)...which are what babes in Christ still are (1Cor 3:2-3), i.e., carnal minded that need spiritual milk and cannot be fed mature food.

Paul is not intending to paint a picture that the natural man does not receive and understand some glimpses of the divine grace (just as John Calvin claims that the natural man does receive such).

Paul is saying that the carnal man and those new in Christ cannot understand the more mature wisdom of the Spirit. Which everyone would agree with, imo.

Peace to you brother

Well stated. Now if those of a certain view will just follow the logic of it.

Always like to see well reasoned comments. Even those I may disagree with.

 

[canadyjd]

I did not see where Silverhair said either of those two things. And no, I don't believe either of those, unless we're talking about babies and children too young or people too incapacitated to understand much of anything, much less believe the Gospel.

Read his posts carefully. He says the gospel is one of many means by which God saves people.

Glad you don’t believe it, too.

Peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

That is just @canadyjd hobby horse.

By his logic none of the OT saints were saved and as you pointed out no babies or mentally handicapped could ever be saved.

He just seems to have a lower view of the power and love of God than I do.

The OT saints were saved the same way we are, by God’s grace and faith in His Messiah.

I know you are incapable of understanding this truth, being blinded by secular philosophy as you are.

You deny God’s Word and His power when you claim God must use many means to bring people to salvation, instead of the ONE BIBLICAL means of the gospel of Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

Peace to you

 

[5 point Gillinist]

The OT saints were saved the same way we are, by God’s grace and faith in His Messiah.

I know you are incapable of understanding this truth, being blinded by secular philosophy as you are.

You deny God’s Word and His power when you claim God must use many means to bring people to salvation, instead of the ONE BIBLICAL means of the gospel of Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

Peace to you

For as "evil" as Calvinism is often called it sure seems like a lot of slander and intentional misrepresentation, as well as outright personal attacks are normative of the opposition's side, the supposed side of true biblical understanding - which would incidentally include love, charity, kindness, etc.

 

[Silverhair]

The OT saints were saved the same way we are, by God’s grace and faith in His Messiah.

I know you are incapable of understanding this truth, being blinded by secular philosophy as you are.

You deny God’s Word and His power when you claim God must use many means to bring people to salvation, instead of the ONE BIBLICAL means of the gospel of Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

Peace to you

See that you still want to limit God is how and whom He can save.

You must have a real problem with Heb 11.

Heb 11:4 By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous when God gave approval to his gifts.

Heb 11:5 By faith Enoch was taken up so that he did not see death:

Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in godly fear built an ark to save his family.

Heb 11:8 By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, without knowing where he was going.
Heb 11:10 For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.

I could go on but I am sure you get the picture. Did you see any presentation of the gospel?

And you also have to deal with infants and the mentally challenged.

Those in the OT trusted in God without hearing the gospel message or of Christ Jesus but you will disagree as it does not fit your particular view.

It would seem I have a higher view of the sovereignty and love of God for His creation than you do.

 

[Silverhair]

Read his posts carefully. He says the gospel is one of many means by which God saves people.

Glad you don’t believe it, too.

Peace to you

Yes @canadyjd you should read my posts carefully. They will prove helpful for you in over coming your misunderstanding of the love of God.

 

[Zaatar71]

Mr.W,

What part of what you believe is Christianity puts Calvinism outside of it?
Do they deny the Trinity?
Do they not believe in the blood of Christ?
Do they deny the necessity of The New Birth?

 

[David Lamb]

You have focused on one verse but ignore the rest of scripture. Paul also said the gospel is the power of God for salvation, also those that hear and respond to that gospel will be saved also if they would confess and believe they would be saved. So if what you think is true then Paul was lying as none of those things could be true.

Yes, it is the power of God that brings about salvation. I fully believe that.

But you also have failed to read that verse in it's context. Which seems to be a common problem on this board.

The context shows us that Paul is comparing the saved, spiritual man, and unsaved, natural man.

Yes, I agree that when Paul talks about the natural man, he is comparing the saved, spiritual man, and unsaved, natural man. What have I written that makes you think I meant anything different?

Note his words on vs 6 "Among the mature, {saved} however, we speak a message of wisdom—but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing."

Which he carries on in vs 7-8 "No, we speak of the mysterious and hidden wisdom of God, which He destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it. For if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

What are the mysteries that natural man does not understand, the same one that new Christians do not fully understand. Vs 9-10 "
Rather, as it is written: “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no heart has imagined, what God has prepared for those who love Him. But God has revealed it to us by the Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God."

Those that are indwelt by the Spirit of God can know the mysteries of God vs 12

So Dave it is not that the natural man cannot accept them it is that he will not accept the reality of God and salvation through faith in Him. Thus because he has not trusted in God he cannot understand the mysteries of God.

My point is that if he can neither know nor receive the things of God, then he can neither know nor receive the truth of salvation only in the crucified and risen Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ. That salvation is surely a £"thing of God."

 

[Silverhair]

Yes, it is the power of God that brings about salvation. I fully believe that.

Glad to hear that Dave. Now you have to answer this,who do you think it was meant for?

Yes, I agree that when Paul talks about the natural man, he is comparing the saved, spiritual man, and unsaved, natural man. What have I written that makes you think I meant anything different?

We were all natural men prior to our salvation. So from what you have been saying none could be saved as you have obviously ignored the rest of what Paul has said and what we see in the rest of scripture. It seems you are building your theological position on one verse 1Co 2:14.

My point is that if he can neither know nor receive the things of God, then he can neither know nor receive the truth of salvation only in the crucified and risen Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ. That salvation is surely a £"thing of God."

Of course salvation is of God, what would make you think I thought any different.

As we see from scripture only God can save but He only saves those that have freely trusted in Him.

Dave you still ignore the context by your comment. Read 1Co 2:6-14 carefully and tell me what it say Dave. What point is Paul making to the brethren?

If we went by the way you treat scripture then no one could even be saved as no one could accept or understand the message.

 

[David Lamb]

Glad to hear that Dave. Now you have to answer this,who do you think it was meant for?

We were all natural men prior to our salvation. So from what you have been saying none could be saved as you have obviously ignored the rest of what Paul has said and what we see in the rest of scripture. It seems you are building your theological position on one verse 1Co 2:14.

None can be saved if left to themselves. Like Lydia, whose heart the Lord opened to the truth, I now that my salvation depends on God.

Of course salvation is of God, what would make you think I thought any different.

As we see from scripture only God can save but He only saves those that have freely trusted in Him.

Dave you still ignore the context by your comment. Read 1Co 2:6-14 carefully and tell me what it say Dave. What point is Paul making to the brethren?

If we went by the way you treat scripture then no one could even be saved as no one could accept or understand the message.

Not so - God enables us to believe on Hs Son for salvation.

 

[Charlie24]

My point is that if he can neither know nor receive the things of God, then he can neither know nor receive the truth of salvation only in the crucified and risen Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ. That salvation is surely a £"thing of God."

It's the hearing of the Gospel that breaks through the depravity of man.

The Holy Spirit through the hearing of the Word of God cuts to the heart of man, convicting of sin, and revealing Christ.

Heb. 4:11-12

"Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

 

[Silverhair]

None can be saved if left to themselves. Like Lydia, whose heart the Lord opened to the truth, I now that my salvation depends on God.

As I said we do not save themselves. God draws all men to Himself but are all saved? If all are not saved then why not? What is the difference between those that are saved and those that are lost?

Not so - God enables us to believe on Hs Son for salvation.

If what you say is true then why are not all saved?

He said He wants all to come to repentance. So logically He has given all men the ability to respond to His drawing. Whether they accept or reject Him is up to the man, that is free will Dave.

 

[MrW]

That is just @canadyjd hobby horse.

By his logic none of the OT saints were saved and as you pointed out no babies or mentally handicapped could ever be saved.

He just seems to have a lower view of the power and love of God than I do.

In regard to Old Testament saints, they were not saved in the sense we are today. The Holy Spirit moved on them but did not indwell them. They didn't go to Heaven at death, but went instead to Abraham's Bosom, which was apparently in the Earth, in a separate compartment from hell, with a gulf fixed between them. When Christ "led captivity captive and gave gifts to men", it indicates He went to Abraham's Bosom after crucifixion and emptied out Paradise, taking them to Heaven. As one preacher said, they were "saved on credit". That is, the blood of bulls and goats could not cleanse from sin, but neither did they go to the devil's hell, because they did trust in God. When Christ died, all was paid in full, and the righteousness of God was fulfilled and Christ emptied out Paradise.
Romans 3:25
whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
This refers not to our past sins, but the sins of the Old Testament believers. The blood of the Lord Jesus was the payment for the sins of Old Testament believers as well as all those who would believe in the future. I hope I wrote all that clearly enough.

 

[MrW]

Mr.W,

What part of what you believe is Christianity puts Calvinism outside of it?
Do they deny the Trinity?
Do they not believe in the blood of Christ?
Do they deny the necessity of The New Birth?

I didn't say that. I am saying Calvinism does not equal Christianity because Calvinism DOES get many things wrong. Basically, they read Scripture backward. They think they believe because they are saved, but Scripture says we are saved because we believe. They get it backward.

That does NOT mean they are not saved. Of course they believe in God's Triune nature, the blood of Christ, and the new birth, being filled and led with the Spirit, Christ is Lord of all and the only means of salvation. But they deny that any person CAN be saved, and they get the order wrong.

Let me say it again--Christianity and Calvinism are not identical. Good Bible-believing Calvinists still teach things that are not founded in Scripture and Scripture alone, but they have misinterpreted and added to Scripture to support their errant belief system. Does not make them lost.

Likewise, Catholicism has done the same, but to a much greater degree. Baptists to a much lesser degree.

Regarding Silverhair and Canady's discussion of how people are saved, I refer to
Acts 17:30
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Old Testament saints did not know of the Cross of Christ and how He would suffer and die and raise the third day. That was not clear to them at all. They had faith in God, as Silverhair pointed out, but now, AFTER the Cross, and after the Gospel has been made known, God now commands all to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (John 14:6, Acts 4:12). People are not received by God by believing in God somewhat ignorantly--now they must trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. I don't think I am making things clear, but I am trying to say in the OT people believed the best they knew how, but since the Cross of Christ, men must believe on Him, and there's no other way. And again, OT saints were not saved in the same sense saints are saved today; they were not born again, they were not Spirit filled and indwelt (as a general rule). Saints today are born again and indwelt of the Spirit and spiritually united to Christ (1 Corinthians 6:17).

 

[MrW]

Can Non Calvinists Believe the Gospel Of The Kingdom? Is that Even Possible?​

I'm not sure what is particularly intended by the word "of the Kingdom", but if it is meant to say believing in the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ for forgiveness of sins and salvation, per John 14:6 and Acts 4:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, then my answer is any person who hears and receives the Word of God can, and should, and must believe if they are to be saved.

If "of the Kingdom" means something else, please inform me, and thank you for doing so.

 

[Silverhair]

In regard to Old Testament saints, they were not saved in the sense we are today. The Holy Spirit moved on them but did not indwell them. They didn't go to Heaven at death, but went instead to Abraham's Bosom, which was apparently in the Earth, in a separate compartment from hell, with a gulf fixed between them. When Christ "led captivity captive and gave gifts to men", it indicates He went to Abraham's Bosom after crucifixion and emptied out Paradise, taking them to Heaven. As one preacher said, they were "saved on credit". That is, the blood of bulls and goats could not cleanse from sin, but neither did they go to the devil's hell, because they did trust in God. When Christ died, all was paid in full, and the righteousness of God was fulfilled and Christ emptied out Paradise.
Romans 3:25
whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
This refers not to our past sins, but the sins of the Old Testament believers. The blood of the Lord Jesus was the payment for the sins of Old Testament believers as well as all those who would believe in the future. I hope I wrote all that clearly enough.

That is not what we see in Heb 11 regarding the OT saints.

Using your stated view please explain
Heb 11:5 By faith Enoch was taken up so that he would not see death; AND HE WAS NOT FOUND BECAUSE GOD TOOK HIM UP; for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God. Genesis 5:21-24

 

[MrW]

Canadyjd wrote:
"1 Corinthians is very clear. Since man did not come to know God through their own wisdom, God was well pleased through the foolishness of the message preached (Jesus Christ and Him crucified) to save those who believe.

There is no salvation without the gospel. The ideology of “responding to the light you have” is a lie from the mouth of Satan that takes the focus off Jesus and puts it on the man.

Anyone that believes many are saved without hearing the gospel is thoroughly deceived and blinded by ignorance of God’s Word."

I agree with the above for today, since the Cross of Christ. In the OT, they did not know the Gospel of Christ. My understanding of "responding to the light you have" is that if a person DOES respond to that light, God gives that person more light, on and on, until He brings them to a place where the Gospel is presented to that person. Another thing:

Romans chapter 1 is the Light of Creation. Romans chapter 2 is the Light of Conscience. The Light of Creation and the Light of Conscience is enough to CONDEMN a person but neither is enough to SAVE a person. Again, if they seek to know more of the truth they have obtained from the Light of Creation and the Light of Conscience, God will see to it that someone somewhere will get to them with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He's a big God--He can do that, but yes, John 3:16, 14:6, Acts 2:21--that's the only way of salvation today. God deals with people in various manners and uses different situations to bring people to the knowledge that they need Christ, but yes, they must believe on Jesus Christ to be saved.

It wasn't like that in the Old Testament. OT saints were reserved in Paradise until such time as the Messiah came and fulfilled God's requirement of the perfect sacrifice to save those OT saints and take them to Heaven and thenceforth requiring all to believe on the Lord Jesus to be born again (saved--regenerated).