Flesh vs Spirit

[JesusFan]

Come on Winman, you've been doing this long enough to know the verses they alway appeal to.

John 6 (the passage where the gospel hasn't even been revealed to the world, by which to draw/enable men to respond)

Romans 8 (the passage that speaks of man's inability to submit to the law, which they translate to mean that man can't submit in faith to the one who fulfilled the law in our stead)

1 Cor 2 (the passage that speaks of the need for spiritual discernment concerning the "deep things of God" that even the carnal believers in Corinth could not receive, yet they apply it to man's total inability to believe the gospel (a spiritual message given by inspiration so that we can understand the mysteries of the kingdom).

Which ones am I missing?

maybe Apostle paul in Romans, where NONE are either rightious/good, NONE seek after God, ALL have turned away from Him?

Or that sinful men everywhere knows God exists from nature, yet refuse to acknowledge Him, and bow down to "gods" of their own making!

 

[Skandelon]

maybe Apostle paul in Romans, where NONE are either rightious/good, NONE seek after God, ALL have turned away from Him?

That is about the nature of man without the Gospel or God's righteousness being made known. You can prove that man will never call God on his own, but how does that prove man can't answer the phone when God calls them?

Or that sinful men everywhere knows God exists from nature, yet refuse to acknowledge Him, and bow down to "gods" of their own making!

But not all men everywhere have done so. Job didn't, for example. God considered him to be upright and faithful.

Now we can speculate as to if that is a result of God irresistible working in Job's life, but if it is why did God bother testing him by allowing Satan to take him through all that pain?

 

[JesusFan]

That is about the nature of man without the Gospel or God's righteousness being made known. You can prove that man will never call God on his own, but how does that prove man can't answer the phone when God calls them?

But not all men everywhere have done so. Job didn't, for example. God considered him to be upright and faithful.

Now we can speculate as to if that is a result of God irresistible working in Job's life, but if it is why did God bother testing him by allowing Satan to take him through all that pain?

probably in order to show to Job that was really self rightous down inside, and that trial exposed it, and allowed god to prune and purify Job!

 

[Skandelon]

probably in order to show to Job that was really self rightous down inside, and that trial exposed it, and allowed god to prune and purify Job!

No, Job, like Abraham, believed in God and that is why it was credited to them as righteousness.

Romans 3 is about men who are attempting to earn righteousness through the law. Job fails by that standard as does Abraham and everyone. "For all have sinned and fall short."

But what is all that leading Paul to introduce?

21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

 

[Winman]

probably in order to show to Job that was really self rightous down inside, and that trial exposed it, and allowed god to prune and purify Job!

We know from scripture that Cornelius was not saved, yet he believed in God. We know the Philipian jailer was not saved, yet he sought God, as well as the Ethiopian eunuch.

And who were those thousands who followed Jesus for days without food?

We know Adam and Eve were dead in sin, yet they responded and came to God when he called, and believed his promise.

So, much scripture refutes your ASSUMED view. Do you have scripture that directly says man was disabled in the fall and lost the ability to believe?

 

[JesusFan]

No, Job, like Abraham, believed in God and that is why it was credited to them as righteousness.

Romans 3 is about men who are attempting to earn righteousness through the law. Job fails by that standard as does Abraham and everyone. "For all have sinned and fall short."

But what is all that leading Paul to introduce?

21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Not disagree with HOW just with the WHOM

God uses the Gospel to produce saving faith in those who are his elect in Christ!

 

[Skandelon]

God uses the Gospel to produce saving faith in those who are his elect in Christ!

Yet, you don't deny that God genuinely sends this gospel appeal to all men everywhere, right?

 

[JesusFan]

Yet, you don't deny that God genuinely sends this gospel appeal to all men everywhere, right?

yes, God sends forth his Gospel to all people, its just that those who will be saved by it are those He effectually applied benifits of the Cross towards!

 

[Aaron]

Aaron, here is the problem with your argument:


Aaron’s view of a “Natural man” ←-- Hears mere words without power of any kind because you don’t believe words should really be regarded as a “work of the Holy Spirit,” so any positive response is of his own power…or by his “nature.”

My view of a “Natural man” ←-- Hears the powerful, life-giving, Holy Spirit wrought Gospel truth that is more powerful than a double edged sword thus enabling him to respond, so any positive response is of the Gospel’s power, a work of God.

See, your false dichotomy sets up the situation that if I say, it’s the “natural man” who responds, then you think or presume or intentionally apply YOUR view of the “natural man” above who is acting without the Spirit’s power or involvement.

I won’t fall into that trap. When I say the natural man responds to the Gospel, I mean something entirely different than you do because you have a low view of the gospel.

Trap? If you're feeling trapped it's because you're seeing the ill logic in your system, so you're forced to redefine the natural man to escape. Let's just stick to the Spirit's view of the natural man, that he cannot receive the things of God. But you're saying there is a time when a natural man can receive the things of God, if the Spirit does something in him.*

This "enabling" that you speak of, what is it? Does the man have to believe to receive it, or is it done to him as an unbeliever? Is this enabling unconditional and irresistible? IOW is he enabled whether he wants to be or not?

Doesn't it seem to you rather unjust that God would enable a person to reject Him and then condemn him for doing so?

*If the natural man is changed in anyway, he is no longer a natural man, but we'll accept your view for the sake of argument.

 

[DHK]

Doesn't it seem to you rather unjust that God would enable a person to reject Him and then condemn him for doing so?

*If the natural man is changed in anyway, he is no longer a natural man, but we'll accept your view for the sake of argument.

Enable him to do what? Believe?
Do you have children? Do they ever tell you the truth, or are they liars continually? When they do tell you the truth, do you believe them? If you do, you have faith. Did your faith to believe what your children tell you (or any other relative) come from God or your old nature?

 

[Skandelon]

Trap? If you're feeling trapped it's because you're seeing the ill logic in your system, so you're forced to redefine the natural man to escape. Let's just stick to the Spirit's view of the natural man, that he cannot receive the things of God. But you're saying there is a time when a natural man can receive the things of God, if the Spirit does something in him.*

This "enabling" that you speak of, what is it? Does the man have to believe to receive it, or is it done to him as an unbeliever? Is this enabling unconditional and irresistible? IOW is he enabled whether he wants to be or not?

Doesn't it seem to you rather unjust that God would enable a person to reject Him and then condemn him for doing so?

*If the natural man is changed in anyway, he is no longer a natural man, but we'll accept your view for the sake of argument.

You way overcomplicate things Aaron. Think of another divine truth you have learned since becoming a believer. Let's suppose a couple years after you were saved someone taught you the doctrine of the Trinity from the scripture, ok?

You heard it and you chose to believe it. You couldn't have believed it until you heard it, but once you did you were able to believe it or reject it. It happens the same way when you first here the divine truth of the gospel. The reason you reject that is because you dogma has been so implanted in you that you don't even think of the Gospel as being powerful. You think the spoken divine truth of God has no power at all. That is just not biblical. The Words, the truth, the light, the spirit...all words used to describe the gospel message and it is powerful enough to illicit a response.

The gospel, just like regeneration, IS A WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. To deny that fact, or to undermine that truth, by insisting that it can't accomplish the purpose for which it was sent (make an appeal to all men "be reconciled to God") is to deny the clear biblical revelation. What is ironic is that you are choosing not to believe a divinely revealed truth, something you deny is even possible. :tear:

 

[Aaron]

No, Job, like Abraham, believed in God and that is why it was credited to them as righteousness.

No, not believed IN God. Abraham BELIEVED God. It would behove you to avoid rewriting the Scriptures.

[edited to correct speelling]

 

[Winman]

Aaron, when 1 Cor 2:14 says the natural man cannot receive the things of God, this is not speaking of faith, and the scriptures themselves prove this. Look two verses earlier at 1 Cor 2:12.

1 Cor 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.

Note how many times the "things" is mentioned. It is mentioned in vs. 9, vs. 10, twice in vs. 11, vs.12, twice in vs.13, vs. 14, and vs.15.

Whatever these "things" are, they cannot be faith, because vs. 12 says these believers have received the spirit of God that they might know these things.

But Paul taught that a person receives the Spirit by faith.

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Paul's question demands that the answer is a person receives the Spirit by hearing and believeing God's word.

Now, go back to 1 Cor 2:12 and you see Paul says these persons had already received the Spirit that they might "know the things of God".

So, these "things" cannot be faith. These persons had already received the Spirit by faith that they might know these things.

Read carefully and you will see I am correct. So, vs. 14 is not teaching that an unregenerate man cannot believe, in fact, in Gal 3:2 Paul proves he can. 1 Cor 2:14 is not speaking of faith whatsoever.

 

[Skandelon]

Doesn't it seem to you rather unjust that God would enable a person to reject Him and then condemn him for doing so?

Not near as much as God not enabling a person to receive an appeal He claims is meant for him and then condemning him for not receiving it.

Plus, what is unjust about enabling a person to reject or accept and then rewarding or punishing them accordingly?

 

[Aaron]

Enable him to do what? Believe?
Do you have children? Do they ever tell you the truth, or are they liars continually? When they do tell you the truth, do you believe them? If you do, you have faith. Did your faith to believe what your children tell you (or any other relative) come from God or your old nature?

*sigh* DHK, There is a natural faith, and a spiritual faith. There is a natural love and a spiritual love. There is a natural sorrow and a spiritual sorrow.

Pointing at the natural counterpart of a spiritual virtue does not prove the virtue to be spiritual. Besides, flowing from a corrupt tree, the fruit itself is corrupt, impotent and unacceptable to God.

 

[Aaron]

No, not believed IN God. Abraham BELIEVED God. It would behove you to avoid rewriting the Scriptures.

[edited to correct speelling]

!@#$% keyborad!

 

[Aaron]

!@#$% keyborad!

aaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh!

 

[Winman]

Not near as much as God not enabling a person to receive an appeal He claims is meant for him and then condemning him for not receiving it.

Plus, what is unjust about enabling a person to reject or accept and then rewarding or punishing them accordingly?

Exactly. It would be unjust for God to demand from man what he knows is impossible and then punish him for his inability. That would be like throwing a blind man in prison because he cannot identify colors.

But it is perfectly just if God punishes man for refusing his grace if the man is fully able to accept it.

 

[Skandelon]

No, not believed IN God. Abraham BELIEVED God. It would behoove you to avoid rewriting the Scriptures.

Yeah, you are so right. You know we need to be sure to correct Luke who wrote: "...having believed in God." Acts 16:34

And David: "they did not believe in God or trust in his deliverance." Ps. 78:22

And Peter: "Through him you believe in God" 1 Peter 1:21

And Paul, or maybe the translators of the NLT: "This happened because Abraham believed in the God who brings the dead back to life." Rom 4:17

or the NIRV: "The God that Abraham believed in gives life to the dead."


Can you think of anyone else you need to correct so that you don't appear to be simply nit-picking me?

 

[Aaron]

You way overcomplicate things Aaron. Think of another divine truth you have learned since becoming a believer. Let's suppose a couple years after you were saved someone taught you the doctrine of the Trinity from the scripture, ok?

You heard it and you chose to believe it. You couldn't have believed it until you heard it, but once you did you were able to believe it or reject it. It happens the same way when you first here the divine truth of the gospel. The reason you reject that is because you dogma has been so implanted in you that you don't even think of the Gospel as being powerful. You think the spoken divine truth of God has no power at all. That is just not biblical. The Words, the truth, the light, the spirit...all words used to describe the gospel message and it is powerful enough to illicit a response.

The gospel, just like regeneration, IS A WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. To deny that fact, or to undermine that truth, by insisting that it can't accomplish the purpose for which it was sent (make an appeal to all men "be reconciled to God") is to deny the clear biblical revelation. What is ironic is that you are choosing not to believe a divinely revealed truth, something you deny is even possible. :tear:

Just answer the questions. If indeed the irresistible nature of the work of the Spirit is our main point of contention, just tell me, is this "enabling" you speak of irresistible? Is it performed by the Spirit (through whatever means) despite a man's will? Or can a man resist it and remain unenabled?