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

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

SoulWeaver

Senior Member
Oct 25, 2014
4,891
2,531
113
Have you ever met a believer in Christ who lacks the same magnitude of joy in their heart as you or me?
I don't need to look far, I am struggling sometimes on daily basis because my flesh puts up a major fight in that area.
So I tell it peace be still and make effort to not allow the current of negative feelings carry me.
But in the first years of being a believer, I really struggled with receiving the notion of hope/joy from the Bible too. Depression will seriously affect beliefs and perceptions. Which is why I wrote what I wrote. So maybe that person who struggles with receiving the concept of hope and that God will guide them safely to the end, and is deadly frightened, and thinks they will mess it all up, sometimes that person just really needs help.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
EleventhHour.

No both are not simultaneously correct but either could be in a specific setting.

I think both of you have decided I'm in a 'rival gang' so you are being aggressively contrary towards things that you actually both believe.

What I'm actually trying to work toward with this math is to show belief and regeneration can't be separated. Which is to say, belief neither precedes nor follows regeneration.
Is that what you've been thinking doing? I bet it's not. You mentioned 'double predestination' out of nowhere ((because I certainly haven't been talking about it)) - so I was guessing that's what you think I am doing math for? No, bro. I'm doing math because it takes the bias and opinion and eisegesis out of this topic. So we can hopefully talk about it without bitterness and presupposition.
1. I have her on ignore so please do not compare her to me I am nothing like her
2. Your math only works for your belief. I see it and disagree with your presupposition. I am not being bitter or anything so please stop trying to accuse me of it
3. You can use all the math you want. You have a person being retreated before they are justified hence they who are dead in trespasses and sin are made alive while still in trespasses and sin (their justification had Not occurred yet because faith has yet to happen. And if as some say you think it was all at the same time. That makes no sense. And just adds to the major Flaw with fatalistic belief system
This is my view I am just stating it. If you disagree disagree. We are allowed to do this
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
But nobody else speaks in math, so I guess I'm just talking to myself and being wildly misunderstood again.

Alas
We just disagree with how you are using it. That’s all (at least in my point)
 
May 31, 2020
1,706
1,559
113
I don't need to look far, I am struggling sometimes on daily basis because my flesh puts up a major fight in that area.
So I tell it peace be still and make effort to not allow the current of negative feelings carry me.
But in the first years of being a believer, I really struggled with receiving the notion of hope/joy from the Bible too. Depression will seriously affect beliefs and perceptions. Which is why I wrote what I wrote. So maybe that person who struggles with receiving the concept of hope and that God will guide them safely to the end, and is deadly frightened, and thinks they will mess it all up, sometimes that person just really needs help.
I apologize. I thought you were saying something to the effect that people who say they believe in Jesus Christ yet lack joy or confidence are not true believers.
 
E

EleventhHour

Guest
Yeah, like calvinists proclaiming the word world in John 3:16 doesn’t actually mean world. Next thing you’ll say is when Jesus gave sight to the blind it wasn’t literal eyesight but merely philosophical understanding.
That would be it exactly.
 
E

EleventhHour

Guest
But nobody else speaks in math, so I guess I'm just talking to myself and being wildly misunderstood again.

Alas
I understand your math, however I am not making a connection from the math to scripture.
 
E

EleventhHour

Guest
What I'm actually trying to work toward with this math is to show belief and regeneration can't be separated.
I agree, they can not be separated for sure, however regeneration can never precede belief this is not demonstrated in scripture.
 
E

EleventhHour

Guest
EleventhHour.

No both are not simultaneously correct but either could be in a specific setting.

I think both of you have decided I'm in a 'rival gang' so you are being aggressively contrary towards things that you actually both believe.

What I'm actually trying to work toward with this math is to show belief and regeneration can't be separated. Which is to say, belief neither precedes nor follows regeneration.
Is that what you've been thinking doing? I bet it's not. You mentioned 'double predestination' out of nowhere ((because I certainly haven't been talking about it)) - so I was guessing that's what you think I am doing math for? No, bro. I'm doing math because it takes the bias and opinion and eisegesis out of this topic. So we can hopefully talk about it without bitterness and presupposition.
What I am wondering is how one takes double predestination out of the equation when God chooses the elect.
It necessitates the opposite.
 
May 31, 2020
1,706
1,559
113
That would be it exactly.
What I mean to say is that sometimes mean people say mean things to their mean cohorts in a mean, colluded effort to change the meaning of what words are really meant to mean. That’s calvinism in a nutshell.


Know what I mean?
 
E

EleventhHour

Guest
What I mean to say is that sometimes mean people say mean things to their mean cohorts in a mean, colluded effort to change the meaning of what words are really meant to mean. That’s calvinism in a nutshell.


Know what I mean?
Calvin was mean and murdered those who disagreed with him.
 
E

EleventhHour

Guest
what non-Biblical supposition?

that when you are saved, you are no longer lost?

i really have no clue why you would argue with that - and it's not really a 'presupposition' as i've proved it twice now.. :p
What I am seeing is you attempting to prove that belief precedes regeneration... and only the regenerated can believe.
 
E

EleventhHour

Guest
How do we establish a time line?

Does this help or hurt -

Acts 16:14
.. and a certain woman, by name Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, worshipping God, was hearing, whose heart the Lord did open to attend to the things spoken by Paul;
See again reading into the text to fit a dogma.

A huge presumption that she was not saved and that whose heart was opened is her being regenerated.

She could in fact have already been saved, since she was one who worshiped God.

And maybe her heart was opened as a believer and and she learned more from Paul and was baptized.
 
E

EleventhHour

Guest
View attachment 220663


G(X) is a transformation which maps unbelievers, X, to believers, Y.

tell me more about G(X) ...

is every x in X mapped to a y in Y? ((is G(X) entire?))
for every y in Y, is there an x in X that is mapped to it? ((is G(X) onto?))
for every y in Y that has an x in X mapped to it, is there only one such x in X? ((is G(X) one to one?))
Yes mathematically correct, however are you trying to prove being chosen by God or simply that X is transformed to Y which I agree.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
32,050
10,847
113
What I am seeing is you attempting to prove that belief precedes regeneration... and only the regenerated can believe.
All I've done is show regeneration is necessary for at least the case where a saved person was once an unbeliever.

Don't you agree with that?

I think you've been projecting your distaste for hypercalvinism to my posts, because none of the math I put has any of those things implied by them, so far as I can tell. It started as a tongue-in-cheek kind of obvious statement that if you believe, you aren't an unbeliever. But you actually disagreed with that, so maybe it's not so obvious that if you're saved you're not lost, or maybe you just read into it something that really isn't there, because this whole thread had been heated up? I like to think it was just misunderstanding.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
32,050
10,847
113
Yes mathematically correct, however are you trying to prove being chosen by God or simply that X is transformed to Y which I agree.
What I'd ultimately like to do is show that G(X) is not differentiable anywhere on its domain. That's my hypothesis/intuition; I haven't worked it all out yet to see. I am thinking that would mean we simply can't know whether regeneration or belief comes first, they may as well be interchangeable or simultaneous. I suspect that's the case because of my belief that God is completely unconstrained by time, even though He works within it for the sake of those who are.

What (I think) I've done so far is show G(X) has to exist and that it is 1:1 - - that the sinner must be regenerated and that God preserves the soul in resurrection, i.e. we still have unique personhood in eternity.
 
E

EleventhHour

Guest
All I've done is show regeneration is necessary for at least the case where a saved person was once an unbeliever.

Don't you agree with that?

I think you've been projecting your distaste for hypercalvinism to my posts, because none of the math I put has any of those things implied by them, so far as I can tell. It started as a tongue-in-cheek kind of obvious statement that if you believe, you aren't an unbeliever. But you actually disagreed with that, so maybe it's not so obvious that if you're saved you're not lost, or maybe you just read into it something that really isn't there, because this whole thread had been heated up? I like to think it was just misunderstanding.
All I've done is show regeneration is necessary for at least the case where a saved person was once an unbeliever.
Yes I see it mathematically

Don't you agree with that?
Absolutely!!

I think you've been projecting your distaste for hypercalvinism to my posts,
Distaste.. NO I think you mean disgust for hypercalvinsm.

I think it was your first logic statement that I had issue with as starting on a faulty (calvin type) premis.

If I am reading your posts correctly, the non math ones, you seem to be in accordance with the idea of total inability which then necessitates God causing the act of belief.

I myself see no place in scripture where God gives belief after regeneration.
 
E

EleventhHour

Guest
What I'd ultimately like to do is show that G(X) is not differentiable anywhere on its domain. That's my hypothesis/intuition; I haven't worked it all out yet to see. I am thinking that would mean we simply can't know whether regeneration or belief comes first, they may as well be interchangeable or simultaneous. I suspect that's the case because of my belief that God is completely unconstrained by time, even though He works within it for the sake of those who are.

What (I think) I've done so far is show G(X) has to exist and that it is 1:1 - - that the sinner must be regenerated and that God preserves the soul in resurrection, i.e. we still have unique personhood in eternity.
I like the math however... with regards to this...

If you continue with math I may have to start using the laws of economics to prove my point... LOL:D

we simply can't know whether regeneration or belief comes first,
I think we need to turn for scripture for this... I think we can see God gives man the responsibility to obey and believe and this in no way weakens the sovereignty of God.
 
Jul 6, 2020
905
330
63
You keep ignoring half of what I say and picking and Choosing

i showed in Romans where if Paul was saved by works he would have something to boast about he said the same in Ephesians (not of works lest anyone should boast). Abraham was before the law, You can not use the law in context because there was no law in abrahams day, paul is talking to people like you, who are adding works of any type as a means of gaining or earning salvation. Hence the reason you can BOAST of saving yourself by your deeds

in contrast, James is speaking to the people of the other side of the pendulum, people who claim to have faith, but have no works, they are hearers of the word but Not doers, so he calls them out for it,

again, using your line items

paul spoke to people who believed this was true

faith - works - assured salvaion. Works based gospel where one can boast of saving himself or legalisms

james spoke to people who believed like this

mere belief (dead faith) - thought they were saved - no work proved their faith was dead. Ie licentiousness

which is why paul and James appeared to be contradicting each other when they were not.

james stated a fact. I proved abraham was declaired righteous in Gen 15. Decades before Isaac was even born. But the fact abraham did what he did, proved over and over his faith was real not dead. And by that his salvation was justified (declaired true)

not by works of righteousness (any good deed or work) which we have done, but BY HIS MERCY HE SAVED US.

you want to earn salvation by being a pharisee type, feel free.. but me, I became like the tax collector and cried out of Gods mercy, because that is the only thing that will save me, my works are as filthy rags, ain’t no way on judgment day I am giving god my works as payment for sin, he will tell me to depart for he never knew me.
Im not ignoring anything I am trying to open hour eyes to the context.
If I speak about the works of the law all through my letter to you and in on place I just say works
Should you not understand that I mean works of the law?

James 2:24
As you can see, a man is justified by his works and not by faith alone.


Clearly and plainly a man is justified by his works.

To reject this is to reject the very word of God.
Now Paul appears to be saying the exact opposite.
So you must ask yourself are Paul and James speaking of different kinds of works?
One kind that justifies and one kind that does not justify?
Are you to take one verse above another, or use one to negate the other?
No.
You are to understand the context and if needed move yourself to a new perspective to find the unity in the word of God that you lack.
Paul is constantly speaking about the works of the law.
James is speaking about the works of faith.

One of these works is not like the other.
One of these works just does not belong.
Sing it with me.
One of these works is not like the other
One of these works just does not belong.

Can you remember your sesame street days?

Why this is such an issue, Because people love the lie, because their deeds are evil.
If one is justified by the works faith, the works of believing then what become of all those who faith is worthless and dead?
They will hear depart from my you who practice lawlessness.
But what God is going to deny ever knowing those who don't keep the law?
How is that when the works of the law made no one righteous?
Well that is just it, the works of Faith do make one righteous and lawful and is the only way to believe and know God.
The one who practices sin has neither seen or known God.

What the law could not do (make you lawful because the outcome of your works depended on you)
God did (because the outcome of your works in faith depend on God in Christ)
As Paul says those who do not have the written law keep the law because they have the law written on their hearts, by God himself.