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

[Barry Johnson]

One more comment to your replies to me, Barry, and I'm going to opt out of further ones...
Since this is George's thread and I'm not wanting to continue with "sub-threads".

Feel free to PM me and we can talk more about whatever you wish.

The fact that you don't think that the preaching of the cross of Christ is foolishness, tells me that God, in His mercy and grace, "irresistibly" opened your eyes and ears to the truth of His words, Barry.
Similarly, the fact that you profess Christ as Saviour tells me a lot...

Instead of a "long 7 months" until you believed on Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, it could have been never.

That anyone believes on Christ and confesses Him publicly ( and what's more important, trusts in Him for deliverance in all their trials and tribulations ) only confirms the work of the Holy Spirit within someone...
As He is the one who is responsible for opening the hearts and minds to the truth of His word ( Acts of the Apostles 16:14 ), and giving them "ears to hear" ( Matthew 13:10-11, Luke 24:45 ).

its foolish by mans wisdom . Simple . But the Gospel IS the power of God unto salvation. Rom 1 .16 .

 

[Barry Johnson]

One more comment to your replies to me, Barry, and I'm going to opt out of further ones...
Since this is George's thread and I'm not wanting to continue with "sub-threads".

Feel free to PM me and we can talk more about whatever you wish.

The fact that you don't think that the preaching of the cross of Christ is foolishness, tells me that God, in His mercy and grace, "irresistibly" opened your eyes and ears to the truth of His words, Barry.
Similarly, the fact that you profess Christ as Saviour tells me a lot...

Instead of a "long 7 months" until you believed on Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, it could have been never.

That anyone believes on Christ and confesses Him publicly ( and what's more important, trusts in Him for deliverance in all their trials and tribulations ) only confirms the work of the Holy Spirit within someone...
As He is the one who is responsible for opening the hearts and minds to the truth of His word ( Acts of the Apostles 16:14 ), and giving them "ears to hear" ( Matthew 13:10-11, Luke 24:45 ).

Your using isolated incidents to people following God already and one before the cross . Thus proving my point again . God can open the understanding of believers if He wants . But to say God always does this is called inductive reasoning . Which is bad bible study.

 

[Sai]

It is impossible to express "inability aspect" of Calvinism with SCRIPTURE ALONE.

They cannot build it.

They have to build the philosophy and indoctrinate a christian and then emphasize failures. IE. YOU ALWAYS STEAL = you can't give anything. You always eat = you can't drink.

Common sense and Calvinism never go together. You can literally ask if God commands a Calvinist to do something, it doesn't mean God wants it done. Calvinist believe GOD wants and desires people to sin. Calvinist believe God wants and desires all people to disobey him.

Why is this a problem? A man who will not be saved will not be saved and a man who will be saved will be saved. Nothing can change it. Unless you’re going into the openness of God heresy that’s been gaining popularity. Why do Muslims reject the gospel? Do they have a hard time comprehending the belief system? Or do they think earning God’s merit is a better way?

If God is perfect and in order to be in his presence we are imperfect who has to compromise his being? God does of course. But if God wanted to perfect us so that no compromise was needed so that our union was free of guilt how could that have been accomplished? It was accomplished with God paying the penalty of Adam’s sin. Now we can by a declaration of God be in his presence without the need for God to compromise his absolute righteousness’ requirement of justice.

It is my belief that scripture teaches that men can see and agree with the argument for unhindered fellowship as o described. They just can’t accept it even tho it is doctrinally and theologically solid as a rock - if one takes their definition of God from the Hebrew concept found in the Bible. God is light and there is no shadow of turning etc. if one believes this, it matters not whether he’s a Mormon or a Muslim or an atheist, he can see, he can agree, he can concede that this is a relevant and strong argument that goes against his theology but, he cannot accept it unless God has drawn him to the Son.


Joy unspeakable full of glory

 

[Reformed1689]

We all agree that man is inherently sinful and that he cannot redeem himself by any work.
We can all quote verses about the sinfulness of man.

I'm interested in the BEST verses you have that SAY [NOT JUST "IMPLY"] that a lost man cannot believe the gospel.

If you had to choose, say, the 3 clearest and most relevant verses to answer the question, what would they be?

Please, please, give the BEST and only 3.

Thanks.

Another post requesting people take Scripture out of context...

 

[canadyjd]

So far no Calvinist has been able to show three verses that say a lost man cannot believe Calvinist loose .

Wonderful. Now that you have caused all “Calvinists” everywhere to abandon their beliefs, let’s close the thread.

peace to you

 

[George Antonios]

Another post requesting people take Scripture out of context...

Oh that's rich. Fine, post the three with their context and highlight the three within the passage.

 

[utilyan]

Why is this a problem? A man who will not be saved will not be saved and a man who will be saved will be saved. Nothing can change it. Unless you’re going into the openness of God heresy that’s been gaining popularity. Why do Muslims reject the gospel? Do they have a hard time comprehending the belief system? Or do they think earning God’s merit is a better way?

If God is perfect and in order to be in his presence we are imperfect who has to compromise his being? God does of course. But if God wanted to perfect us so that no compromise was needed so that our union was free of guilt how could that have been accomplished? It was accomplished with God paying the penalty of Adam’s sin. Now we can by a declaration of God be in his presence without the need for God to compromise his absolute righteousness’ requirement of justice.

It is my belief that scripture teaches that men can see and agree with the argument for unhindered fellowship as o described. They just can’t accept it even tho it is doctrinally and theologically solid as a rock - if one takes their definition of God from the Hebrew concept found in the Bible. God is light and there is no shadow of turning etc. if one believes this, it matters not whether he’s a Mormon or a Muslim or an atheist, he can see, he can agree, he can concede that this is a relevant and strong argument that goes against his theology but, he cannot accept it unless God has drawn him to the Son.


Joy unspeakable full of glory

"If God is perfect and in order to be in his presence we are imperfect who has to compromise his being? God does of course"

I don't think this is what you mean, but your giving me the impression God had to become little more evil to come in contact with those imperfect?

God never changes. Immutable, Impassible. He doesn't have to upgrade or downgrade for anyone to be in his presence. You are simply in his presence if he wills it.


"It was accomplished with God paying the penalty of Adam’s sin."
Paying who, what? That sounds like the one being paid is "REAL" God


"Now we can by a declaration of God be in his presence without the need for God to compromise his absolute righteousness’ requirement of justice."

Perfect righteous justice has always been equated to "CHARITY" the Hebrew word for justice, based on restorative justice, not a volcano god's retributive justice.


"he cannot accept it unless God has drawn him to the Son."

Jesus Christ draws all men.

John 12
32“And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”


Even in John 6 its not a exclusive offer, 32Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven.
They refused.

"Why is this a problem? A man who will not be saved will not be saved and a man who will be saved will be saved."

Thats the easiest way to state the Calvinist Gospel. IF GOD likes you then you will be saved, If God hates you then you will be damned. Same attitude of any other pagan god or volcano god. Having the right favor is always the gist.

How is it we can word the entire belief in one line the bible could not in 40 thousand? Because that is not what scripture teaches.

Instead it has us begging on the behalf of Jesus that a person reconcile with God. BEGGING people to reconcile with God.

If your common sense is sanctified, wouldn't it make more sense to BEG GOD?

 

[MB]

Wonderful. Now that you have caused all “Calvinists” everywhere to abandon their beliefs, let’s close the thread.

peace to you

Not my thread. I could only wish all Calvinist would abandon there false doctrines and stop twisting scripture. How ever they enjoy being wrong.
MB

 

[ivdavid]

I'm interested in the BEST verses you have that SAY [NOT JUST "IMPLY"] that a lost man cannot believe the gospel.

Knowing full well that these words are commonly used interchangeably, I would still attempt to point out the nuanced difference between saying one "cannot" believe the Gospel and saying one "is not able to" believe the Gospel. Can/Cannot refers to the capacity that one is designed with - man cannot fly by flapping his arms because God never meant him to. But being able/unable only refers to such existing capacity being rendered unusable due to a later cause - I am unable to walk due to an injury, I am unable to see due to a genetic mutation, I am unable to obey God's commands due to sin entering the world.

With that, my 3 verses are from the same context and from a translation (YLT) that best transliterates this passage...
Rom 8:7 because the mind of the flesh is enmity to God, for to the law of God it doth not subject itself,
Rom 8:8 for neither is it able; and those who are in the flesh are not able to please God.
Rom 8:9 And ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God doth dwell in you; and if any one hath not the Spirit of Christ—this one is not His;

It says, not implies, that those in the flesh are not able to please God.
It says, not implies, that one is not in the flesh only if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in them.

Wouldn't Scriptures be broken if I now point to a man in the flesh who does not yet have the Spirit of Christ dwelling in him as one who believes and obeys the Gospel command, therein pleasing God as per Heb 11:6?

 

[atpollard]

Knowing full well that these words are commonly used interchangeably, I would still attempt to point out the nuanced difference between saying one "cannot" believe the Gospel and saying one "is not able to" believe the Gospel. Can/Cannot refers to the capacity that one is designed with - man cannot fly by flapping his arms because God never meant him to. But being able/unable only refers to such existing capacity being rendered unusable due to a later cause - I am unable to walk due to an injury, I am unable to see due to a genetic mutation, I am unable to obey God's commands due to sin entering the world.

With that, my 3 verses are from the same context and from a translation (YLT) that best transliterates this passage...
Rom 8:7 because the mind of the flesh is enmity to God, for to the law of God it doth not subject itself,
Rom 8:8 for neither is it able; and those who are in the flesh are not able to please God.
Rom 8:9 And ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God doth dwell in you; and if any one hath not the Spirit of Christ—this one is not His;

It says, not implies, that those in the flesh are not able to please God.
It says, not implies, that one is not in the flesh only if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in them.

Wouldn't Scriptures be broken if I now point to a man in the flesh who does not yet have the Spirit of Christ dwelling in him as one who believes and obeys the Gospel command, therein pleasing God as per Heb 11:6?

Bravo!
Well done.

 

[Van]

Romans 8:7
because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,

Romans 8:8
and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Romans 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.

Calvinism is based on reading into scripture what is not being said. Does have their mind set on fleshly desires equate with being unregenerate? Of course not. Clearly when a person is sinning they are not seeking.

Does being "in the flesh" equate with being natural men, unregenerate. Of course not. Calvinist take vague ambiguous words and phrases and read into scripture their false doctrine.

Here is the actual message:
If you set your mind on fleshly desires, you are "in the flesh." If you set your mind on the things of the Spirit, you are "in the Spirit."

With you mind set on fleshly desires, you are hostel to God and are not able to subject yourself to godly desires. With your mind set on fleshly desires, you cannot please God.

However, if your mind is not set on fleshly desires, but on the things of your indwelt Spirit, you belong to Christ, if indeed the Spirit of Christ dwells in you.

This begs the question can you set your mind on spiritual things before you are indwelt? Calvinists point to this passage and say no. However the opposite message is the actual message, it is possible for unregenerates to set their mind (some of the time) on some of the things of the Spirit, spiritual milk. This is taught at 1 Corinthians 3:1-3.

Bottom line, there is no actual support anywhere in scripture for the TULI of Calvinism.

 

[atpollard]

This begs the question can you set your mind on spiritual things before you are indwelt? Calvinists point to this passage and say no. However the opposite message is the actual message, it is possible for unregenerates to set their mind (some of the time) on some of the things of the Spirit, spiritual milk. This is taught at 1 Corinthians 3:1-3.

[1 Corinthians 3:1-5 NKJV]
1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual [people] but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able [to receive it], and even now you are still not able; 3 for you are still carnal. For where [there are] envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like [mere] men? 4 For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I [am] of Apollos," are you not carnal? 5 Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one?​

You have a strange definition of "unregenerates".

 

[Van]

[1 Corinthians 3:1-5 NKJV]
1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual [people] but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able [to receive it], and even now you are still not able; 3 for you are still carnal. For where [there are] envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like [mere] men? 4 For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I [am] of Apollos," are you not carnal? 5 Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one?​

You have a strange definition of "unregenerates".

Calvinists pretend they cannot discern meaning from scripture, so Paul speaking to new Christians as to "men of flesh" does not mean Paul is teaching "men of flesh" can understand spiritual milk. No, Paul speaks as to men of flesh so they cannot grow.
The more you study Calvinism the more obvious its falseness becomes.

 

[George Antonios]

[1 Corinthians 3:1-5 NKJV]
1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual [people] but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able [to receive it], and even now you are still not able; 3 for you are still carnal. For where [there are] envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like [mere] men? 4 For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I [am] of Apollos," are you not carnal? 5 Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one?​

You have a strange definition of "unregenerates".

I think what happened here is that you fell into Van's "trap"; for if the "carnally minded" are always and only the unregenerate, then the men of 1Corinthians 3 were unregenerate and therefore unable to exercise faith, according to the Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 8:5-7.

 

[George Antonios]

Paul was shaming them for the fact that he had to speak with BRETHERN "LIKE" or "AS IF" they were men of flesh. You are ignoring the meaning of "LIKE / AS IF". That means they were NOT men of flesh.

No he he isn't. You are rather forgetting (not necessarily ignoring) that as is not always used in the sense of "like" but often in the sense of something being precisely that.
If the Prime Minister of Canada shows up, and the President tells his staff that he expects them to treat Trudeau "as the Prime Minister of Canada", i.e. "as such", that doesn't mean that Trudeau is just "like" a Prime Minister but he isn't an actual PM, it means he is.

If I marry a couple in my capacity "as pastor" it doesn't mean I'm not a pastor.

Anyway it's a moot point, because the Corinthians were being carnal, which is why they were being reproved.
A saved man is still physically (just not judicially) in the flesh and can follow the flesh.

 

[Van]

Paul was shaming them for the fact that he had to speak with BRETHERN "LIKE" or "AS IF" they were men of flesh. You are ignoring the meaning of "LIKE / AS IF". That means they were NOT men of flesh. SNIP

Here the Calvinist says I am ignoring the the meaning of "as to men of flesh." Of course the opposite is true, Calvinist deny Paul spoke to the new Christians as to men of flesh, thus both can understand spiritual milk.

Then of course we get a half page of strawman hooey.

 

[atpollard]

I think what happened here is that you fell into Van's "trap"; for if the "carnally minded" are always and only the unregenerate, then the men of 1Corinthians 3 were unregenerate and therefore unable to exercise faith, according to the Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 8:5-7.

You are correct, this is YOUR topic and I wanted no part in it, so I should have avoided any bunny trails.

 

[atpollard]

Here the Calvinist says I am ignoring the the meaning of "as to men of flesh." Of course the opposite is true, Calvinist deny Paul spoke to the new Christians as to men of flesh, thus both can understand spiritual milk.

Then of course we get a half page of strawman hooey.

Off topic, anti-Calvinist "smokescreed".

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

 

[Van]

So 1 Corinthians 3:1-3 does teach men of flesh can understand spiritual milk, which of course is one more passage proving Calvinism's "T" is bogus.

 

[Van]

My bad, there are not three, there are not two, there is not even one verse that teaches some men of flesh cannot understand spiritual milk. (On topic, on target, on truth...)

Soil #1 no understanding but Soils #2,3,and 4 do understand thus they are the some Men of Flesh who do understand spiritual milk.