The Natural Man Receiveth Not the Things of the Spirit of God

Bro Jack,
If you hunted for lost folks like you do Calvinist, you would be much more useful in our Lord's work. It would seem Witch hunting is a favorite pass time of many preachers these days. I know I have wasted many hours chasing down Armenians for sport. I had to give up this hobby to pastor one His church's.
I'd love to argue theology with you, but this old Calvinist needs to be about seeking that which was lost. You will not change anyones theology with your efforts nor will they change yours. (it is up to God to open blinded eyes) I hate to think your going to waste these next few days posting on SI with the world around you lost and going to Hell. If it is up to us to save them from the flames, lets turn our PC's off and beat the bushes. We can argue about Calvinism with you when we all get to heaven, but it won't be near as fun. Because by then you will be a Calvinist like the rest of us. May every soul you win today be drawn by the Holy Spirit to the Lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world to the praise of God the father.
Your fellow laborer, Harold

Harold, chasing down Armenians for sport sounds mean. I think you meant Arminians.

Jack, we surrender. You have successfully stunted all theology that isn't rooted in the sovereignty of man. There are no answers anywhere for what you have put together. We give you the ball back.

When one has exhausted their arsenal normally they begin their retreat with names, innuendos and exaggerations. It appears, Jack, that many with whom you have engaged are in such a retreat.

Your identification that with the Word is the presence of the Holy Spirit that the natural man may understand is well documented. I notice a rather large dearth of responses to your argument here.

This is what I was originally responding to. Someone said they would rather evangelize than do the back and forth with Jack. I responded to his sad face that no one was dealing with what he said and only attacking him.

I haven't read all of your thoughts on every issue Jack. Your showing up throwing punches though is something I would have engaged in years ago. Now I will just follow Rom 15:1.

Letting sleeping dogs lie refers to "Do not instigate trouble.; Leave something alone if it might cause trouble." So you have the intention of instigating trouble by your own admission? I am pretty sure that is a virtue somewhere, but not in scripture.

I don't want to further upset you Jack, but do you really think that my not wanting to poke a hornet's nest is the equivalent of not enduring sound doctrine?

I am speaking for myself and I'm sure some of the others will agree; most of the post fall under Titus 3:9. No one is interested in discussion and learning, only promoting a system and putting down someone else's theology. Would this not be considered "foolish questions" and "contentions?" The text says we are to "avoid" these. No one is attacking the messenger as much as the messenger is attacking this forum.
Lets just stop, what do you say? I will stop first. You can post after me and get the last word in, and I won't respond. Then these foolish arguments will be over.

I am completely lost as to what you are asking or what you are stating. I could take guesses, but would rather not. Can you be a bit more specific?

Jack,
Your argument and conclusion(s) are not as clear as you seem to think.
Based on the original post, let me see if I have you right. Your view is that...

1. Natural man does not receive the gospel without the aid of the Spirit
2. The Spirit sometimes "comes with the gospel" and sometimes doesn't
3. If the Spirit does come, the sinner believes because the Spirit persuades him
4. If the Spirit does not come, the sinner rejects the gospel

If this is what you are saying, I fail to see how it differs from the old Reformed idea of irresistible grace (which I am not arguing for or against here). That is, the Spirit only "comes" in the sense of bringing conviction of the truth, to those whom God has chosen... and if He does they do not reject (resist) the message of the gospel. And if He does not, they are helpless to genuinely see it's truth.

But I'm thinking it was not your goal to make a case for irresistible grace. So... how about spelling out what exactly your target is and you believe you have hit it?

I'm confused Jack, is this response an example of the humility or the unity of the Spirit you were promoting in another thread just now?

Do you really have to keep resorting to personal attacks on people. Either you are willing to try again to make yourself clear, or you are not. It really is a simple question. Can you please provide some simple, clear, concise answers?

Jack, it appears as though you are being targeted by many people as someone who is confused and confusing. Can you plainly state whether or not you believe you are a victim? The very fact that people ask you time and again to clarify and you respond by telling them they are confused demonstrates to me you are a victim.

If you are a victim, what steps can you take, if any, to no longer be a victim?

If you are not a victim, what steps can you take to address the concerns people have without indicating they are blockheads?

Please clearly answer so we only have to go through this experience once.

I've provided one reason already: 1 Thess 1.5... Paul's argument there is that there acceptance of the gospel was due to the Spirit powerfully working along with the message. This would imply that others did not accept the gospel because the Spirit did not work--at least not in the same way.

There are two better ways to take this statement, both of which do not support your point.
a) The "spirit" there is in contrast to flesh and does not refer to the Holy Spirit. In this case, "they are spirit" would mean their nature is that they deal with spiritual realities not physical ones. They reveal spiritual truths.
b) Probably better: the first "spirit" is the Holy Spirit and therefore "they are spirit" means "they are from the Spirit."
It's an interesting statement. I'm sure there are other views and I'm curious now. Will do some more digging.
But Jesus did not say "my words are always accompanied by the convicting work of the Spirit." If that is what He meant, it's necessary to make some exegetical case for taking it that way.

As for 1 Peter 1:12, the "them" in "them that have preached" is the prophets (see v.10). So "preached the gospel by the Holy Spirit" refers to them receiving the message of the gospel from the Spirit or to the Spirit empowering them to do the preaching. Even the latter is not the same as the Spirit always bringing conviction to the hearer.

Your reasoning, as I understood was that the Spirit convinces all hearers of the gospel that they are sinners and that this is evidence that the gospel is true, evidence they may reject. My point is that if He is convincing them they are sinners, He is also convincing them of the rest of the gospel. So their sinnerhood is not "evidence" they may accept or reject on the way to accepting or rejecting the rest of the gospel. The whole gospel is included in the Spirit's convicting work.

I may need to clarify something here. I do believe it is possible to resist, even "quench" the Spirit (1 Thess.5:19). But there are two things important to keep in mind about that. 1) The passage refers to believers and is a metaphor of some kind (the word has to do with putting out a fire). What's clear is that it has to do with not being as responsive as we ought to be to the Spirit as believers. 2) When the Spirit does His John 16:8 work, He does not necessarily do it completely all at once in every case. For whatever reason, He often draws (John 6:44... the Father is in view here, but I think He does this through the Spirit) slowly. It's accurate enough to say that people often "resist" before they arrive at full conviction.

Taking is as purpose doesn't really solve the "world" problem there. Even as an expression of purpose it would be saying "It is His purpose to convince the world." So He either fails in His purpose or that convincing is also the result.

The result is that I'm probably going to have to backpedal on my earlier assertion that "convict" here means "convince" i.e., personal faith. Maybe, maybe not. If it's personal faith, one has to take the reference to "the world" (kosmos) in some way that does not indicate "the population of the entire world."
But several of my better commentaries are arguing for taking the term "convict" in a judicial sense, but still not quite equivalent to our judicial "convict." So the idea is He legally declares the world to be sinful, declares the standard by which they are judged (righteousness) and passes sentence.
There are some problems with this idea, too.

So I'm back at the drawing board on that passage at the moment. One thing is certain: the Spirit there is not merely supplying sinners with some evidence that might result in their reasoning their way to seeing the truth of the rest of the gospel.

The logic of your statements here eludes me. The verse tell us that Satan blinds the minds of unbelievers, and you claim that the verse "demonstrates that man's mind is not blind to the gospel." The verse says that man IS blind to the Gospel, doesn't it? So how does that demonstrate that man is not blind? You have used this verse to show that man is not blind due to some birth condition from Adam, and I can at least see your reasoning there. If man was blind from a birth condition, then why would Satan have to blind him? So even if it is not a birth condition that causes man's blindness, the blindness is still a reality since the verse says that Satan is blinding man. How can you claim that all men are not blinded to the gospel by Satan if the verse says that they are?

I was regenerated.... (to my everlasting grattitude!) I was not wise enough to reason my way to belief in the gospel or virtuous enough to seek what I needed.

So maybe in the process of discussing with you I'm talking myself into regeneration before faith. But the truth is that I see this amazing moment as being a bit mysterious because there is no fraction of a second when a regenerated person does not have faith... so the two have to be simultaneous in some way, seems to me. I'm quite comfortable with a little mystery.

No merit of my own, His anger to suppress,
My only hope is found in Jesus' righteousness.

His grace has planned it all. 'Tis mine but to believe,
And recognize His work of love and Christ receive.

Jack,

You have done an excellent job in demonstrating the results of Augustinian/Calvinistic rationalism with regard to matters of soteriology and divine sovereignty. As I noted in another thread regarding the A/C rationalism:

And here is one of them. Faced with the fact of textual realities which clearly communicate that consequential to faith one is regenerated and is automatically and simultaneously made alive together with Christ and in fact, seated or positioned with Christ (Ephesians), they are forced to ignored these realities and instead offer emotional or sentimental appeals to human gratitude and divine grace, a divine grace which is taken out of context but nevertheless used with the forceful posture that to disagree with this "one and only" view of divine grace in salvation is an affront to God.

They cannot answer your question(s) in full though they deem themselves informed enough to fully reject or challenge your propositions. Still, yet, they cannot fully assert their's and at best leave this issue as insufficiently attended to by Scripture, hence mysterious or at worst argued with rationalistic constructs to the denial of elementary passages.

It is quite plain that to be regenerated is to be made alive and positioned and/or seated with Christ. And it is quite clear that one who attempts to explain away regeneration in a manner that asserts that it (regeneration) is caused so that one may believe, yet it is really not that at all, rather it is a simultaneous occurrence of faith and regeneration (and even then too mysterious to fully understand) simply undermines his own argument and relegates himself to contradictory status. In other words, they say it is one thing but then say it is another.

But most clearly they deny the clear and plain statements of Scripture, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and though shalt be saved". Salvation is caused by belief (through faith) and belief is not caused by salvation. Regeneration is the condition of a saved man, not of an unsaved man.

Jack, though I do not agree with you on all details in the matter, I believe you have pursued the issue on whole quite well.

I've never really found the distinction to be very meaningful. If you eliminate temporality completely from question, there is no longer any reason for the logicality. As soon as we speak of something "before" something else, we are speaking temporally whether we say "logically" or not. But in any case, the difference does not matter to me.

Once the gospel was brought to you, you had to respond in some way. That response is seeking God. A sinner's disposition is to avoid God and disbelieve in Him. This disposition reaches to every part of his being. So something must change that.
The Arminian solution is prevenient grace: the idea that God bestows a faith-enabling grace on all the moment they are born. In this solution, the sinner is still not innately able to respond positively to the gospel. Rather, he is enabled in advance of hearing it by a comprehensive work of grace.
I do not prefer that solution but some solution is required. The only alternative is to mangle Rom.3 (as all forms of Pelagianism do.. not to mention Rom.5)

No, he is actually born again by God, by means of the gospel. The gospel does not act to change anyone. God does.

I myself still have a hard time with the "logical order" vs. "temporal order" situation. It seems to me that if something is happening in a cause and effect relationship, then the cause must be occuring temporally before the effect. It doesn't seem logical to me to have a cause simultaneous with the effect. The way I picture a "logical order" is if one of the simultaneous items is foundational to the other. The foundation wouldn't necessarily cause the other item, but would have to be in place for the other item to be in it's place, like a canvas upon which a picture is painted. Is there anything wrong with thinking of "logical order" in those terms?

If I show you the Mona Lisa, then I am showing you canvas and paint that are existing together. Sure, you could have a separate canvas or separate tubes of paint, but those separate things would not be the Mona Lisa. So in my analogy comparing salvation to a painting, I don't think you can have the canvas separate from the paint. They have to exist together for it to be the Mona Lisa. The main problem I have with my own Mona Lisa analogy is determining whether the canvas or the paint is more foundational to the existence of the Mona Lisa.

This paradox has me wondering whether "order" is even a valid term to use when discussing the relationship between the two. If they are both simultaneous, and you can't have one without the other, then neither one would be in an "ordered" relationship to the other, would they?

Regeneration (as Calvinists define it) IS foundational to salvation, and does necessarily cause salvation. No one can be regenerated and NOT exercise faith and be saved. In that sense the order is logical.

One of the analogies used for logical order is a train in motion. When the train is moving, all the cars are moving simultaneously and at the same speed. Yet, the reason the first car is moving is because of the engine. The reason the second car is moving is because of the first car, and so on down the line. Another example might be being and action. Whenever I speak of an agent acting, I imply that it has being, either truly or hypothetically. So, being is logically prior to acting. Or, the number 1 is logically, though not temporally, prior to 2. Numbers, whatever their reality may be, are certainly not temporal things, and it makes no sense to posit a temporal order. Yet, if there were no concept of 1, there could be no concept of 2. The second necessarily implies the first.

In the ancient world, in both Greek and Latin, many words such as "first," last," "prior," "consequent," and so on shared their meanings between logical and temporal functions. An example is the Cappadocian formulation that the Father is the "arche" or "principium" (beginning) of the Godhead, which does not imply anything temporal at all (quite the contrary!). English tends to separate such ideas more sharply, though we occasionally see such overlap, such as the "First Lady."

This sentence should read, "Which treats faith precedential to our spiritual regeneration".

Charlie, I think I get it--from the numbers explanation (though the train doesn't help me.... every car in the train moves because of the engine though contingent on a relationship to the preceding car).
You can count aloud "five, four, three, two, one." In that case, they occur in reverse order in time. But logically 1 is always prior to 2 because the nature of "2" is one twice.

But what remains unclear to me from your post: in your view, can faith come before regeneration in time while remaining logically "after" (seems to me that this is really more like "logically dependent" not "logically subsequent") it?

Alex... on "believe.... and then you will be saved" and "believe that you may have life."
First, "saved" describes deliverance from something (sin's penalty, etc.) and does not refer to regeneration.

As for "believe that you may have life," with passages like these we have work to do because there is seeming contradiction with Rom.3, where sinners simply do not believe unless God acts to "get them there." So over the years people harmonize them either by interpreting Rom.3 (and similar passages like Eph.2, "dead in trespasses and sins") differently or by interpreting "believe...live" passages differently. (In this case, you're referring to John 20:31?)
Or by saying--as I do--that it looks like they must occur simultaneously.

It is interesting, though, to look at the history and why folks have leaned one way or the other in harmonizing these tensions. The view that men can simply believe without divine intervention seems mainly to have the advantage that the alternative seems unfair and illogical. It doesn't seem logical or fair to suppose that sinners cannot believe unless God acts to open their hearts (Acts 16:14). So, though the accusation is often made that "Calvinism" (most of this goes back at least as far as Augustine but probably further) is forcing logical constructs onto Scripture that aren't really there, the most passionate objections to believing that God takes the initiative in every step of salvation are consistently logic/fairness arguments. It just offends our modern sensibilities to suppose that we are not really in control of anything.

Dan... That's pretty much sorta where I went here. You can see Jack's response from that post on.

I can understand why Jack objected to this one. I'm not sure it's in the Text (at least 1 Cor 2). You really asked him to disagree with himself.
What I asked is more focused on the Text.

Jack, let me elaborate a little for clarity.
My #1 might be problematic for you because you might rather say that all are natural and then some become spiritual. If so, I can agree with this statement also.

My #3 will be tough for Jack because he seems to want to say that all are natural at the point of salvation (receiving the Gospel).

My #4 ("does not and can not know") will be tough for Jack, but I think it is clearly in the Text of 1 Corinthians 2:14.

Well, generally speaking, yes. Now, there are some tricky areas regarding infant salvation, but I'm content to leave it there. I think that most of the problems are caused by people who are reading their own, quite different definitions of regeneration into Calvin, the WCF, and others; then, they conclude that the doctrine is unbiblical and absurd. Of course, that's not addressing the substance of the teaching. Now, some people largely hold the WCF doctrine but are uncomfortable using the term "regeneration" to describe effectual calling. A good example would be Bruce Demarest, who, in The Cross and Salvation argues for a calling-faith-regeneration order. He seems to affirm the substance of Calvinist teaching, so I won't quibble about words. I'm not entirely sure, but I think Bruce Ware and a number of other 4-point Calvinists hold the same approach.

Howdy all,

I am fresh into this site looking for some R & R discussing Bible topics with like minded believers. I have been posting on TOPIX Christian forums and man is that forum plagued with attacks from Athiests, unbelievers, and psuedo-christian cult people. They just love to try to attack and bite at anything a Fundamentalist tries to share with them that the Bible says. One thread that I tried to jump in and help salvage from the wolves was entitled: We believe in God Here. No non believers Thank You!! I felt so sorry for the dear lady that started it, as she wanted it to be a Thread where Christians could share there testimonies to encourage one another. I am sure she did not expect the vicious wolves to attack instantly, but they did. Their attacks were vicious, relentless, and frequently offensive.

In dealing with their anti-born again christian comments and deceptive questions; I knew my main purpose was not an effort on my part to convience those unbelievers that I was sharing the truth with them. The main focus was to show the younger Christians that all of our beliefs can be supported Biblically. I found that most of the unbelievers accusations, comments, and questions could all be answered with Scripture, without interjecting my thoughts. That is how I discovered an amazing similarity between the athiests and the cult members posting there. Both groups got furious most of the time when I answered with the appropriate Bible Verses; and both groups repeatedly, over and over called the Bible a book of myths. Yes, I understood, that my secondary purpose was to make the unbelievers accountable for the truth, while at the same time, doing all I could to encourage the true believers.

It became extremely plain to see, that those unbelievers, TRULY could not understand any spiritual Truths. Therefore, "The Natural Man Receiveth Not the Things of the Spirit of God" is absolutely True, because they had no living spirit in them to discern Truth with. In fact not even counting their hateful comments; they frequently called the verses I posted, "foolishness, silly, mythology, nuts, dumb," etc. Until they are born again, there natural minds, will never understand the Spiritual Truths of God.

Hi. Welcome to the forum.

I'm surprised you'd get that on a Christian site. Most of the Christian sites I've joined either have rules excluding atheists from joining or ask that atheists only post in a certain sections. It's ironic that the most attacks I've gotten for my belief in the Bible has been on a secular site called "Defending the Truth." As if they know what truth really is.

Yet, I think there can still be a benefit in presenting the Word of God to them. I don't think God will regenerate anyone who has not heard the Word, so even if they don't understand it right away, they still need to hear it. We just have to be sure we don't respond to them with the same nasty attitudes that they show to us.

TOPIX Forums is a public forum site that has a multitude of subcatagories. Christian Forum is just one of them. Oh they do not dicriminate because they also have a Jehovah Witness Forum, a Mormon Forum, etc. They probably do not monitor their Forums very often, as some posts I would label Vicious Attacks. I jumped into one debate on the Mormon Forum, becaus they had labeled the Thread: "Mormons: We are Christians, too". It was like talking to a brick wall, but at least I made them accountable for the Truth, by showing them how the majority of their Beliefs, totally contradict the Bible.

Yes, I absolutely believe that sowing the seed is not a waste of time, as years later someone else may come along and water that same seed, and if there is some fertile soil there, the Holy Spirit will cause that seed to sprout. I rejoice for the FEW, but I do realize the majority are on the Broad Road to destruction.

The question would be better stated "Can man contribute to his Salvation?" Which is a definate, NO, it is a finished work of the Lord's because of what HE did on on the Cross. However, even phrased as you put it "Can man contribute to the faith that is a free gift?", I would still have to answer NO. If we contributed something to it, then it would be something to brag about, or even something earned such as a salary. A free gift is not free if we contribute anything too it, in fact it says if we have faith "that not of yourselves". So if we do HAVE faith, it is proof that the Holy Spirit has been working in our hearts, and so is the bi-product of saving faith, "a desire to obey God". It purely is by Grace {recieving what we do not deserve} and Mercy {not receiving what we do deserve} that we have Faith and Salvation. We do not get to claim credit for any of it. We can only sit in awe and tearfully sing "Why Me Lord?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tA7E7pbUws

Eph 2:8-10 (NKJV)
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

This "preparationism" is a compensating mechanism for their incorrect ARC (Augustinian/Reformed/Calvinist) view of faith.

It is a mythological narrative foreign to both reality and the Scriptures that the exercise of faith is viewed either as a meritorious act (hence it cannot be classified as part of the work of salvation and all questions resting in this premise such as "can man contribute to his salvation" which seeks to include the exercise of faith, are invalid to start with) or one devoid of human volitional content.

Can man earn salvation? No. Is man responsible for exercising positive volition to the gospel? Yes and he does and any argument that seeks to either deny this or reconstruct it in a contradictory manner which attempts to give lip service to admitting human responsibility being present in the exercise of human volition which is part of the exercise of faith yet hypocritically and contradictorily asserts man has no part whatsoever in the process because faith is a gift from God (the ARC assertion, not necessarily mine but accepted for the sake of argument at the moment) therefore it would be a ghastly claim to partner man with God in the believing of the gospel and somehow deny, alter or remove in part the exclusive work of Christ, is simply double talk which gives service to a system of theology which is ill-equipped to handle to essential nuances, subtleties and sometimes obvious presentations in Scripture.

Thanks for the detailed response, I appreciate the distinctions you made.

What is to be viewed within the scope of "the natural man receiveth not the things the things of the Spirit" is obviously what is in contention here. And it is clear some conclude that because of man's natural blindness to the Gospel, this then necessitates his regeneration apparently ignoring the fact that when the Spirit of God that enlightens man as to the Gospel (as the Scriptures teach he accompanies the Gospel for this very purpose) in his natural state in order to remedy man's blindness to this truth that he may indeed believe, it does not necessitate his regeneration, even if you take the view that faith itself is a gift, even in that case it does not necessitate man's regeneration prior to believing. This will remain somewhat puzzling for me if not for the most outstanding practice of many I see doing which I have concluded is allegiance to a system of theology and a rationalistic apologetic.

I think I follow what you said up to this point... then got lost. But on this part, I wonder if the idea of the Spirit always accompanying the gospel--and thus enabling the possibility but not necessity of faith in every one who hears--has been taught under the "prevenient grace" umbrella somewhere in the Wesleyan/Arminian tradition? I don't recall ever hearing the view before this thread--and a couple of other fairly recent ones.
If it came up in class or my reading I slept through it (yes, I think I have slept through some books... my hands turned pages and my eyes saw words but I was not awake!).

I'm mostly thinking out loud, but locating these ideas in a history would be helpful. I thought I had it pretty well pegged with Pelagius but, I'm not at all sure now that it belongs there.
(I am still completely convinced that the Spirit does not always accompany the gospel in any enabling sense and that faith is a gift. But that doesn't mean I don't want to correctly understand the alternative views)