Unsystematic theology.

[Eli1]

If I may...

This is just an outline. I can expound upon any point.

You will not find "non-believer" in the scriptures. There is only "unbeliever". The distinction is this: belief is a standard of behavior NOT simply a thought in the mind. All men know God is but, because of tradition, rebellion, carnality, etc. most men live as unbelievers... not living as if God is real.

This is like the word "disobedient" in the New Testament. The root of the word is the same word for apathy. We understand apathy to mean "uncaring or disinterested". To be "disobedient" is to ignore the reality of a standard being.

The key is this: human living assumes a standard of life. The standard for all men is Christ Jesus. Most men are unbelievers; men who do not live as if He is real even though they know He is real. In that reality disobedience is normal.

Last item: Adam had the spirit of God in him. This was the pneuma (nāp̄aḥ in the Hebrew) or the breath of God that was breathed into the lump of clay to bring him alive. Adam and Woman most certainly could have resisted the enemy in the garden.

Aaron, if i may ... a LOT of concepts in the Bible are not listed exactly word-for-word so if you say "where does it say in the Bible" that's the wrong question sometimes.
Because where does the Bible say the word "Trinity"? It doesn't. But we all (i hope) believe in the Holy Trinity.


I also agree with your other comments about disobedience and apathy. That's exactly my understanding too.
And unbelief, or rejection of God to be more accurate is a form of apathy.

 

[Aaron56]

Aaron, if i may ... a LOT of concepts in the Bible are not listed exactly word-for-word so if you say "where does it say in the Bible" that's the wrong question sometimes.
Because where does the Bible say the word "Trinity"? It doesn't. But we all (i hope) believe in the Holy Trinity.


I also agree with your other comments about disobedience and apathy. That's exactly my understanding too.
And unbelief, or rejection of God to be more accurate is a form of apathy.

I get it.

But for our understanding, the distinction between "unbeliever" and "non-believer" is important.

Non-believing is the absence of a thought.
Unbelieving is the active denial of what is known.

I went on this rabbit trail when, after reading God's criticism of the unbeliever. I thought, in my youthful mind "If they don't have the information then how can they be held accountable?" Of course that led me to Romans and Galatians and Genesis, etc. and ultimately to the Greek and Hebrew dictionaries.

 

[Eli1]

I get it.

But for our understanding, the distinction between "unbeliever" and "non-believer" is important.

Non-believing is the absence of a thought.
Unbelieving is the active denial of what is known.

I went on this rabbit trail when, after reading God's criticism of the unbeliever. I thought, in my youthful mind "If they don't have the information then how can they be held accountable?" Of course that led me to Romans and Galatians and Genesis, etc. and ultimately to the Greek and Hebrew dictionaries.

I understand you a lot better now and i've had this discussion with many people before.
There is a lot of confusion in the word atheist alone because some dictionaries say "lack of belief". But 'lack' means 'deficient' so how can you unknow something that you know unless you have a brain accident which affects your memory?
These dictionaries are usually written by leftist atheists by the way who have a hard time defining 'a woman' which is why i mentioned my leftist comment earlier in the topic.

This is why the word "disobedience" is more accurate in relation to Adam who was in God's presence.

 

[GWH]

I understand you a lot better now and i've had this discussion with many people before.
There is a lot of confusion in the word atheist alone because some dictionaries say "lack of belief". But 'lack' means 'deficient' so how can you unknow something that you know unless you have a brain accident which affects your memory?
These dictionaries are usually written by leftist atheists by the way who have a hard time defining 'a woman' which is why i mentioned my leftist comment earlier in the topic.

This is why the word "disobedience" is more accurate in relation to Adam who was in God's presence.

Also keep in mind the type of revelation available at the time, and don't omit Eve.

For example, A&E were only responsible for believing God's command regarding the tree,
NOT for believing that Jesus atoned for sins, and their original sin was disbelieving GW
as they chose to believe the Devil's lie instead.

 

[Eli1]

Also keep in mind the type of revelation available at the time, and don't omit Eve.

For example, A&E were only responsible for believing God's command regarding the tree,
NOT for believing that Jesus atoned for sins, and their original sin was disbelieving GW
as they chose to believe the Devil's lie instead.

Thank you captain obvious.
We are talking about the term "natural man" in case you haven't caught up in the topic.
Natural man means Unbeliver.
So far so good. But when you say that Adam was a natural man, that's not good.
Adam disobeyed instead.

 

[Aaron56]

Thank you captain obvious.
We are talking about the term "natural man" in case you haven't caught up in the topic.
Natural man means Unbeliver.
So far so good. But when you say that Adam was a natural man, that's not good.
Adam disobeyed instead.

Yeah, to add an additional layer...

Natural man would mean a person who lives according to the desires and lusts of the natural flesh. That type of life may be called "soulish" or a soul life. The reason is for the seat of authority for the man's life: from his own idea what is good for him. This is juxtaposed to the "life of the spirit" or "life in the spirit". Such a life is led by the Spirit of God: God's Spirit to man's spirit.

In such a life (in the Spirit) man submits his soul to the spirit within him and his spirit receives instruction from God Who gave it. By this, man may do what is pleasing to the Lord, in faith. It is in faith because man's ways are not God's ways. A life in the spirit is contrary to the soul life and, in many ways, seems precarious. The faith we have is that God is invested in the outcome of a life led by His Spirit. In fact, He guarantees that such a life continues in perpetuity beyond the natural death of the man.

 

[Aaron56]

This is an aside comment, so it's free:

Years ago I purchased a book entitled "Systematic Theology" by Wayne Grudem. It was a book my men's Bible study group was going to go through in part.

It was not the most boring book I ever read but it was contending for the top 5. It reminded me of similar books that came from Calvinist writers and other cessationists: good for arguing theology but bereft of any spiritual food. It was promoted as a key to unlock the "true meaning of scripture". At most it should have been marketed as primer to people who have never seen a Bible or had no experience living a life led by the Spirit of God. A child's thing.

Any way, that was free. Please carry on.

 

[Edify]

Question. What is a "natural man" for us English as a 2nd language people? Is it the Sinful man or a Non-Believer?

It is "the flesh", both for saved & not saved. Take note that Paul is writing to the Corinthians, one of the worst churches. He wrote 3 epistles to them with many warnings.
The epistles are generally to the church about the church, rarely about sinners, except about sinners IN the church.
Paul is showing the church how easy it is to get in the thinking of the flesh & think you're still in the Spirit.
Christians do this all the time, esp. those that don't believe in the HS baptism. This is often seen in pride & arrogance of the individual.
They will burn in anger & argue with you how right they are.
I hope that helps.

 

[Eli1]

Yeah, to add an additional layer...

Natural man would mean a person who lives according to the desires and lusts of the natural flesh. That type of life may be called "soulish" or a soul life. The reason is for the seat of authority for the man's life: from his own idea what is good for him. This is juxtaposed to the "life of the spirit" or "life in the spirit". Such a life is led by the Spirit of God: God's Spirit to man's spirit.

In such a life (in the Spirit) man submits his soul to the spirit within him and his spirit receives instruction from God Who gave it. By this, man may do what is pleasing to the Lord, in faith. It is in faith because man's ways are not God's ways. A life in the spirit is contrary to the soul life and, in many ways, seems precarious. The faith we have is that God is invested in the outcome of a life led by His Spirit. In fact, He guarantees that such a life continues in perpetuity beyond the natural death of the man.

Thank you !!!
100% agree with this.

 

[Mikael156]

Many Christians wish the Bible was clearer. There are many passages that are hard to understand. Some seem contradictory or contrary to nature. Brilliant scholars with vast knowledge of Greek and Hebrew fail to agree on some interpretations. What hope have people like me, who have no knowledge of Hebrew and only slight knowledge of Greek?

Why does God do this? If we were writing the Bible, we would ensure that there was no place for confusion. The Bible itself tells us why.

The first problem is what is called "the natural man". This is an individual who is either not born again at all or perhaps, spiritually dormant. Those who are born again but rely entirely on their intellect are often confused by what they read. As Paul said to the Corinthians,

"The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14).

This is one reason why it is so important to have the mind renewed. Often, the spirit of the born again believer knows intuitively what the Bible means. But when logic and reason argue against intuition, we have a battle on our hands.

For example, perhaps the greatest truth in God's word for us personally is that God loves us. Unconditionally. Yet how often we look at ourselves and wonder how God can love someone like us. Perhaps our circumstances are hard, even impossible, so we doubt. We wonder if God has forsaken us, yet God's word says that He will never leave us or forsake us.

Luke 10:21 says that God has hidden spiritual truths from the wise and revealed them to little children. So much for the doctorate of divinity.

God has provided the means for any believer, no matter how lacking in knowledge, to receive the true understanding of His word. Paul prayed for the Ephesians what we do well to pray for ourselves, "That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in your knowledge of Him." (Ephesians 1:17). Those who are born again can call upon the help of the Holy Spirit to give them understanding of what they are reading.

God may not answer your request immediately. We may need to persist in our request. God's priority is for us to know Him and to know Jesus. Knowledge for the sake of it is not edifying and may result in pride (and I know a lot about that). On the other hand, it is the truth that sets us free. And that apparent contradiction is exactly what I am talking about.

I would say the answer is very simple if people were humble.

I will state a parable:

A man wants to learn French so he has two options, a native French speaker with a great history and education of understanding the language and different dialects for centuries or he can learn from a German who learned some French on Duolingo. Who should the man learn from preferably? So too, who has not only studied every letter of the Torah and Tanakh for thousands of years but have even kept it until this day? Let alone all the NT is pretty much written by the same people. Yet one who comes out of an English seminary in 4 years and alone on his opinion seems to know better.

 

[Edify]

If I were the Devil, which part of the world would I infiltrate first? Most of the known world is already under his control. so he would go after the areas that aren't. That would be the upper echelon of the church, which included the political heads of the denominations & all their seminaries. Deceit works best in a top-down scenarios, getting the heads of seminaries under his control.
So at this time in church history, I'd never recommend them.

 

[Mem]

Thank you captain obvious.
We are talking about the term "natural man" in case you haven't caught up in the topic.
Natural man means Unbeliver.
So far so good. But when you say that Adam was a natural man, that's not good.
Adam disobeyed instead.

In modern vernacular, I'd categorize Natural man as a disbeliever. Merriam Webster defines the meaning of disbelieve as to hold not worthy of belief: not believe.

 

[Aaron56]

In modern vernacular, I'd categorize Natural man as a disbeliever. Merriam Webster defines the meaning of disbelieve as to hold not worthy of belief: not believe.

That works too.

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened."

 

[Pilgrimshope]

So, an unbeliver then?

It’s a person who follows after the lusts of thier flesh , follows after and seeks after the natural things they aren’t interested in Jesus talking about repentance and spiritual things

“For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; ( natural ) but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. ( spiritual )

For to be carnally minded ( natural ) is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. ( spiritual )

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.”( natural )
‭‭Romans‬ ‭8:5-8‬ ‭KJV‬‬


“For the flesh ( natural ) lusteth against the Spirit, ( spiritual ) and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ( spiritual ) ye are not under the law.

Now the works of the flesh ( natural ) are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. ( spiritual )

And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.”( natural )
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭5:17-26‬ ‭KJV‬‬

The thing is some use the phrase “ natural man cannot accept the things of god “ as proof of some sort of election
but

…we are all born naturally we all bear flesh and blood we all get tempted and sin , we’re all natural people . Ots why we have to be “ born again “It’s only when natural people accept the gospel that they receive the spirit of Jesus Christ and can overcome the natural corruptions they face through the flesh
they have to believe in they would rather have a juicy steak they can taste and make tbier own judgements.

Everyone is born in the flesh and blood natural state but only believers are born again. We’ve all been the natural man but through the gospel we can be the spiritual man

 

[Mem]

The serpent approached Eve as if he were a 'friend' basically telling her that God wasn't worthy of belief, she disbelieved God. In Adam's case, how would you(s) categorize his regard for God? He wasn't deceived (which is not that much unlike the serpent). I mean, the serpent's m.o. was to, at least indirectly, cause their deaths. But did Adam's regard for the Word of God, effectively, 'kill' God?

 

[Eli1]

The serpent approached Eve as if he were a 'friend' basically telling her that God wasn't worthy of belief, she disbelieved God. In Adam's case, how would you(s) categorize his regard for God? He wasn't deceived (which is not that much unlike the serpent). I mean, the serpent's m.o. was to, at least indirectly, cause their deaths. But did Adam's regard for the Word of God, effectively, 'kill' God?

I don't think this is quite right, also factoring-in what you said earlier about a non-believer.

The serpent tried to approach Eve as a "friend" casting doubt in what God told Adam and Eve, this is why the word 'disobedience' is more accurate in their case.
When we speak of unbelievers, these are people who don't want to believe in God. But for Adam and Eve God was present just like my father is present in my house. So the word 'belief' or 'natural man' is not quite correct to use in their case.
Also Adam disobeyed too mainly because he had no idea what physical death means. He was in a child-like state.
Also there was no Word of God written. God was there. He was speaking to them.

 

[Mem]

I don't think this is quite right, also factoring-in what you said earlier about a non-believer.

The serpent tried to approach Eve as a "friend" casting doubt in what God told Adam and Eve, this is why the word 'disobedience' is more accurate in their case.
When we speak of unbelievers, these are people who don't want to believe in God. But for Adam and Eve God was present just like my father is present in my house. So the word 'belief' or 'natural man' is not quite correct to use in their case.
Also Adam disobeyed too mainly because he had no idea what physical death means. He was in a child-like state.
Also there was no Word of God written. God was there. He was speaking to them.

I consider anything that God speaks as His Word, although I recognize you may be referring to either official scripture or Jesus Himself? To me, the regard toward authority is resonant in disobedience.

 

[Eli1]

I consider anything that God speaks as His Word, although I recognize you may be referring to either official scripture or Jesus Himself? To me, the regard toward authority is resonant in disobedience.

Hm. I think we may be misunderstanding each-other.
The word of God says that God was speaking to Adam and Eve in the Garden.
So this means that at the time, there was no word of God. It was God Himself, Adam and Eve in a relationship where they could hear each-other.
Therefore, we can't say that Adam or Eve were unbelivers or a 'natural man'.

 

[Mem]

Hm. I think we may be misunderstanding each-other.
The word of God says that God was speaking to Adam and Eve in the Garden.
So this means that at the time, there was no word of God. It was God Himself, Adam and Eve in a relationship where they could hear each-other.
Therefore, we can't say that Adam or Eve were unbelivers or a 'natural man'.

I see man as dynamic, and God as the only consistent (however not static), in nature.

 

[Eli1]

I see man as dynamic, and God as consistent (however not static), in nature.

I'm not sure what this means in relation to 'natural man' or an 'unbeliever' but if you'd like to explain further i would appreciate it.
Thank you.