Unsystematic theology.

  • 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.
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.
My reply was mainly in response to this declaration.
Therefore, we can't say that Adam or Eve were unbelivers or a 'natural man'.

I think I'd best explain my idea as Adam having gone from being good, as God is, to being both good and evil. I had the word on the tip of my tongue that would characterize how I perceived your thinking on it, and it still bugs me that it doesn't come to me but, I don't think that man is always 'either one or the other but rather erratically fluctuating between the two in his attempt to 'be' as God, and failing miserably of course. That is, natural man is double-minded, and unstable. So, the fall would then come 'naturally.'
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eli1
My reply was mainly in response to this declaration.


I think I'd best explain my idea as Adam having gone from being good, as God is, to being both good and evil. I had the word on the tip of my tongue that would characterize how I perceived your thinking on it, and it still bugs me that it doesn't come to me but, I don't think that man is always 'either one or the other but rather erratically fluctuating between the two in his attempt to 'be' as God, and failing miserably of course. That is, natural man is double-minded, and unstable. So, the fall would then come 'naturally.'

Thank you.
I think what you described here is the definition of sin as i learned from my church which is "missing the mark".
But in relation to the words that we are using which are modern words compared to base words, i would say that we can't say that Adam and Eve were unbelivers because an unbeliever means that you don't believe the thing you're talking about to begin with. In this case God Himself.
And since Adam and Eve were IN the presence of God, then to call them unbelivers seems a bit strange to me.
Because otherwise the word "unbelief" loses its meaning.

If Adam and Eve doesn't believe that God was there with them while talking to them, then a lot of other things about our reality and even Heaven itself come into question.
That's why it seems very strange to me to call them unbelievers when they could hear God in the flesh or the bodies they had before corruption.
 
Thank you.
I think what you described here is the definition of sin as i learned from my church which is "missing the mark".
But in relation to the words that we are using which are modern words compared to base words, i would say that we can't say that Adam and Eve were unbelivers because an unbeliever means that you don't believe the thing you're talking about to begin with. In this case God Himself.
And since Adam and Eve were IN the presence of God, then to call them unbelivers seems a bit strange to me.
Because otherwise the word "unbelief" loses its meaning.

If Adam and Eve doesn't believe that God was there with them while talking to them, then a lot of other things about our reality and even Heaven itself come into question.
That's why it seems very strange to me to call them unbelievers when they could hear God in the flesh or the bodies they had before corruption.
I see. I agree that we couldn't call them unbelievers and be serious. Unfaithful, maybe, but not unbelievers in the modern sense of the understanding of that term. What I'm having trouble with is agreeing that we can't call them natural, since I think it's natural to be unfaithful. I think this is what provided the leverage for the serpent to successful work within his deception. "You trust God, do you? REally... you should trust me instead."
While being presented, and even struggling, with the temptation doesn't actually condemn anyone (as exampled by Jesus), that they 'reached out and took hold' is significant of the finality of decision.
 
I see. I agree that we couldn't call them unbelievers and be serious. Unfaithful, maybe, but not unbelievers in the modern sense of the understanding of that term. What I'm having trouble with is agreeing that we can't call them natural, since I think it's natural to be unfaithful. I think this is what provided the leverage for the serpent to successful work within his deception. "You trust God, do you? REally... you should trust me instead."
While being presented, and even struggling, with the temptation doesn't actually condemn anyone (as exampled by Jesus), that they 'reached out and took hold' is significant of the finality of decision.

Unfaithful makes more sense. Doubtful. That also makes sense.
I would say i was doubtful when my grandmother told me to keep my hands away from the stove. I thought she was making it up.
But i didn't have unbelief in my grandmother as if she didn't exist right then and there when she told me that.
And this is the point of free-will. Because when a person that loves you, like my grandma or our Father in Heaven tells you not to do something and you disobey anyway, then you find out the consequences of that.
Since Adam and Eve had no prior experience with death, hardship and labor they could not give enough importance and appreciation for the consequence.
Because right here and now if anyone of us, with this knowledge that we have, were put in the same situation as they were before, would you still do it?
I doubt it. I would never agree with the serpent even if the serpent put a gun to my head. Shoot me instead ... if you're allowed.
I'm not disobeying !
Because i now know what separation from God is, what suffering, sin, hard labor and physical death is.
But Adam and Eve didn't know any of this at the time so they were easily fooled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mem
Hm. I think we may be misunderstanding each-other.
I thought I was on to what you were doing there...
Unfaithful makes more sense. Doubtful. That also makes sense.
I would say i was doubtful when my grandmother told me to keep my hands away from the stove. I thought she was making it up.
But i didn't have unbelief in my grandmother as if she didn't exist right then and there when she told me that.
And this is the point of free-will. Because when a person that loves you, like my grandma or our Father in Heaven tells you not to do something and you disobey anyway, then you find out the consequences of that.
Since Adam and Eve had no prior experience with death, hardship and labor they could not give enough importance and appreciation for the consequence.
Because right here and now if anyone of us, with this knowledge that we have, were put in the same situation as they were before, would you still do it?
I doubt it. I would never agree with the serpent even if the serpent put a gun to my head. Shoot me instead ... if you're allowed.
I'm not disobeying !
Because i now know what separation from God is, what suffering, sin, hard labor and physical death is.
But Adam and Eve didn't know any of this at the time so they were easily fooled.
And now no shadow of doubt remains. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eli1
And now no shadow of doubt remains. ;)

Nope. God is supreme.
Glory is His name.
Thank you for bringing us here Father so we can know you and love you from our hearts.
Have mercy on us and send your Son as soon as you can, so we can come to you in the Garden or New Jerusalem.
 
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.

Thank you for this insightful post, Only Father, could have revealed this to you in truth, and thank you for sharing it
John 13:34
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as Ihave loved you, that ye also love one another.

That was, is Jesus once risen from the dead, who said this to the Disciples, that John reports
Wait a second, what about? __________________________. I hear God answer that
"Did I Stutter" "I" did this for y'all, y'all
Those that do not agree, will fight, themselves and anyone else that has a talk with them about being loved first. Will not see Romans 2:1-4. the day I saw that, I quit accusing, abusing, berating, and excusing me. Turned to Thank you Lord, I am now willing to get taught new by you
Then the turn began, and I saw to take care of my own board in my own eye, before trying to remove specks from anyone else's eye anymore. Seeing now not to try to remove specks, rather trust Daddy, Father, PaPa too do it through me. Luke 21:14-15. That does not mean "I" got it, God does by Son as Risen we are released from Prison of condemnation, seeing g truth of Romans 8:1-3 to me, anyways
 
The "natural man" is the man without the indwelling Holy Spirit. In other words, a non believer. I avoid the word "sinner" because people immediately imagine evil. We need to remember that Adam ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So the natural man is not necessarily especially wicked.

Yes, compared to God's standard of perfection, he falls short as we all do. But he may be a good husband and father, work hard and have good morals. But the things of God are a mystery to him. Nicodemus is a good example. Lord Jesus baffled him with the concept of being born again.
Gideon, do you make a distinction between "having the Holy Spirit, and "being indwelt by the Holy Spirit"? If you do, I would agree with your definition. But if you make no distinction, I think you definition would be flawed.
 
Thank you for your great posts recently in this forum. I understand you a whole lot better than most.
Question. What is a "natural man" for us English as a 2nd language people? Is it the Sinful man or a Non-Believer?

The natural man is the Adamic nature, and of course the spiritual man is the Christ nature. Unbelievers and even many believers live according to the natural man.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NewLifeInChrist
The natural man is the Adamic nature, and of course the spiritual man is the Christ nature. Unbelievers and even many believers live according to the natural man.

In this case, how do you translate the 'natural man'?
As an unbeliever? Or as something else?
 
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.
Beggars can’t be choosers
 
In this case, how do you translate the 'natural man'?
As an unbeliever? Or as something else?

41.41 ψυχικόςc, ή, όν: (derivative of ψυχήa ‘inner self,’ 26.4) pertaining to behavior which is typical of human nature, in contrast with that which is under the control of God’s Spirit—‘unspiritual, worldly, natural.’ ψυχικὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπος οὐ δέχεται τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ θεοῦ ‘a person who is unspiritual cannot receive the gifts that come from God’s Spirit’ or ‘a person who is worldly …’ 1 Cor 2:14. In a number of languages the equivalent of ‘unspiritual’ is simply ‘one who is not guided by God’s Spirit’ or ‘one who does not live in accordance with God’s Spirit.’

Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). In Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., Vol. 1, p. 508). United Bible Societies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eli1
41.41 ψυχικόςc, ή, όν: (derivative of ψυχήa ‘inner self,’ 26.4) pertaining to behavior which is typical of human nature, in contrast with that which is under the control of God’s Spirit—‘unspiritual, worldly, natural.’ ψυχικὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπος οὐ δέχεται τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ θεοῦ ‘a person who is unspiritual cannot receive the gifts that come from God’s Spirit’ or ‘a person who is worldly …’ 1 Cor 2:14. In a number of languages the equivalent of ‘unspiritual’ is simply ‘one who is not guided by God’s Spirit’ or ‘one who does not live in accordance with God’s Spirit.’

Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). In Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., Vol. 1, p. 508). United Bible Societies.

Ah THANK YOU!

So in this case the 'natural man' is not an unbeliever but a 'sinful man'.

Thank you!
 
Ah THANK YOU!

So in this case the 'natural man' is not an unbeliever but a 'sinful man'.

Thank you!
It's the human nature that we received from Adam as opposed to the spiritual nature we received when God came to live in our hearts. It goes back to the top of the passage that says we don't receive spiritual things through our physical eyes, ears, or understanding but rather by way of His Spirit enligtening our understanding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eli1
It's the human nature that we received from Adam as opposed to the spiritual nature we received when God came to live in our hearts.

Thank you.
This makes more sense to me. This is why it's difficult to understand what people mean with 'natural man'.
You can simply say "inherited sin". Or 'First sin'.
 
Thank you.
This makes more sense to me. This is why it's difficult to understand what people mean with 'natural man'.
You can simply say "inherited sin". Or 'First sin'.
One of the reasons I like Louw-Nida's Greek-English Lexicon is that it speaks about the difficulties in translating Greek into other languages besides English because all languages do not contain all the same concepts.