What does an unregenerate heart lack that keeps a person from coming to faith?

[Josheb]

If Jesus is the Word, and the Word is spirit and life, and living, then would hearing the Word of God have the capacity to open the eyes and heart of an unbeliever?

Only if God endowed it to do so for that purpose.

Isaiah 6:8-10
Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me!" He said, "Go, and tell this people: 'Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but do not understand.' "Render the hearts of this people insensitive, their ears dull, and their eyes dim, otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and return and be healed."

God rendered the hearts of those people insensitive. These people could listen and listen and listen and listen and listen and listen and keep on listening but never perceive what they were hearing. That inability happened at God's hand. In other words, what God did to those people was piled on top of the already-existing effects of sin. Romans 1 tells us God gave those who denied His power over to their lusts. What lusts do God deniers have? According to John the lusts of this world, "lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," do not come from God.

All the unregenerate sinner has is his flesh. He has no lust for God that comes from God. God must give him that lust, that desire.

Digression: I found the appeal to AA curious because if you genuinely understand the problem of addiction then you know the fundamental problem within the problem is lust. The addict puts one thing and only one thing on his wishlist:

More!​

He does not care what it is, he simply wants more of it. Lust is insatiable. Sin is not a sickness that desires a cure. Sinners do not want to be cured of their sickness unless and until God gifts them salvation from that sickness. That is why so much of the epistolary is written about the regenerate believer and not the unregenerate non-believer.

Notice the Isaiah text applies to two groups of people: 1) the people to whom Isaiah was preaching in the 8th century BC and a specific group of people who would be living some unstated time in the future, a time when the land would be desolate, a time in which Isaiah reported the "holy seed" (Jesus) would remain, a time when, "a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel."

What did Jesus say about these people who God would blind, deafen, and harden on top of their sin and all the depraving effects thereof? I have already covered what Matthew reported Jesus stated: The ability to understand Jesus' words were granted to them. Jesus spoke in parables specifically so people would NOT understand. They would be ever seeing but not perceiving, ever hearing but never understanding, their hearts had become dull. Paul stated their hearts are darkened. Why did God allow this and why did God pile onto the already existing effects of sin? According to Jesus..... "lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them." The full force of prophecy came bearing down on those people. The full force of God's response to disobedience and rebellion came bearing down on those people expressly so those people would not understand, repent and be healed.

But Josh, that sounds like an awful God, and awfully malevolent God. Doesn't God desire all me be saved? Yes, God does desire all me be saved. He also desires to mete out the just recompense for sin. God has many desires, and they do not conflict or contradict one another. The exact same Jesus who went silently to the cross like a lamb to the slaughter s coming back quite violently with a sword in his mouth to destroy sin, sinners, and death.

Here's how the other gospel writers reported Jesus' use of the Isaiah text.

Mark 4:10-12
As soon as He was alone, His followers, along with the twelve, began asking Him about the parables. And He was saying to them, "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, so that while seeing, they may see and not perceive, and while hearing they may hear and not understand, otherwise they might return and be forgiven."

Unless the mystery has been given to a person they can listen and listen and listen but never understand. When Paul writes, "faith comes by hearing," he is writing about the already saved, regenerate believers and not unregenerate non-believers. Unregenerate non-believers can hear and hear and listen and listen to no avail because they have not been given what is necessary to understand what they hear.

Luke 8:9-10
His disciples began questioning Him as to what this parable meant. And He said, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is in parables, so that seeing they may not see and hearing they may not understand.

Unless an ability to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God had been granted to a person, they could not understand what they heard. No amount of listening would in and of itself provide understanding. A person must be born anew from above to see the kingdom of God. Absent that new birth they are ever seeing but never perceiving, ever hearing but never understanding. The natural man cannot understand the things of the Spirit. He thinks they are foolish.

John 12:36-41 ESV
While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.” Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: “Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” Therefore, they could not believe. For again Isaiah said, “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.” Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him.

According to John, the Isaiah 6:9 text was about Jesus and God glorifying Himself through His Son. That means the Isaiah text is inescapably Christological! According to John, the arm of the Lord relevant to the ability to see/perceive, listen/understand must be revealed to a person before they can turn and be healed. John does not equivocate. He explicitly states God blinded the people, God hardened their hearts, and God did that so they would not repent and be healed. God piled on to the effects of sin. They could not believe. John attributes the deafness, blindness, and the hardening to God, not to sin and not to the sinner's volition.

Paul even weighed in on the matter.

Acts 28:23-28
When they had appointed a day for him, they came to him at his lodging in greater numbers. From morning till evening, he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets. And some were convinced by what he said, but others disbelieved. And disagreeing among themselves, they departed after Paul had made one statement: “The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet: “‘Go to this people, and say, “You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.” For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed; lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’ Therefore, let it be known to you that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen.”

Despite having Jesus explained to them by a Pharisee using the Law and the prophets some who not believe. Does Luke attribute their disbelief to the sinners' volition? or to their cognitive faculties? No! Luke explicitly reports Paul explaining their lack of salvific response as a function of God's hardening. God blinded them. God deafened them. God hardened then and the stated reason for His doing so was so they would not be able to perceive and understand, repent and be healed.

They were already dead. God was not mistreating the animated corpses to whom Paul spoke.

Many years later Paul would write about this same condition after having preached the gospel in scores of synagogues throughout the Roman empire.

Romans 11:7-10
What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.” And David says, “Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them; let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see and bend their backs forever.”

In addition to the effects of sin that every human experiences, God made them stupid. Only the elect obtained and understanding. The rest God hardened. God had retribution for them, not salvation.

This is why it is very important for anyone evangelizing to be mindful of the Spirit because God might be using you to harden someone !​

.

If Jesus is the Word, and the Word is spirit and life, and living, then would hearing the Word of God have the capacity to open the eyes and heart of an unbeliever?

Not according to scripture.


These scriptures leave us with only two options:

Either there are two groups of people, the saved and the unsaved or there are three groups of people: the saved, the Jewish unsaved, and the Gentile unsaved. If the latter then perhaps everything the Law, David, Isaiah, Jesus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul said applies only to the Hebrews/Jews and not to anyone else. Maybe it applied only to those groups of people in those specific times and circumstances. Maybe none of it is generalizable to any other time or any other people.

The problem is Paul did not make soteriological divisions between Jews and Gentiles. He said ALL have sinned, ALL have been hardened and given over to their lusts, and no one seeks God for salvation from a God they deny for a sickness they do not believe exists.

 

[Carbon]

Only if God endowed it to do so for that purpose.

Excellent answer! Amen!

 

[Josheb]

So how much power does the Word of God have?

The word of God is living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, even penetrating as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart (Heb. 4:12). The word of God goes out from God's mouth, accomplishes what He purposes it to accomplish, succeeds in the thing for which He sent it, and never fails to do so (Isa. 55:1). These two texts alone mean two things:

God is the causal agent, not the sinner, nor the sinner's cognitive faculties, nor the sinner's volitional agency. The word does the work, and as I have described in Post 41, there are piles of verses throughout the Bible describing the inability of the sinner to understand what he is hearing.

1 Corinthians 1:18
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.


The word of God is the helmet of salvation.

Can we learn something from Jesus' healing ministry?

Certainly......... if God enables us to do so. Fleshly learning has no salvific merit.

Does it in any way typify the spiritual side of things and can we learn something from that?

Sure. Many a sinfully dead and enslaved person has learned to live a better life on his way to destruction. Jesus even described one such group.

Matthew 7:21-23
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons, and in your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness."

The sinner continued to sin (practicing lawlessness) while still doing things in Jesus' name without actually being known by Jesus. The sinfully dead and enslaved sinner continue to sin and bring upon himself more and more death and enslavement while pretending, or delusionally, to perform otherwise commendable things. The problem is salvation is not by works and faith of the flesh has absolutely no salvific merit.

I ran into this while browsing.

Isaiah 42: 6-7 "I, the Lord, have called You in righteousness, And will hold Your hand; I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people, As a light to the Gentiles, To open blind eyes, To bring out prisoners from the prison, Those who sit in darkness from the prison house.

Is our being a light to the world supposed to open blind eyes? Is it so people can see (as a child) what they need to understand?

Dave

To whom is the capital "Y" "You" referring? Who is it that would be appointed a covenant to the people, a light to the nations, to open blind eyes and set free prisoners?

Surely you understand the Christological nature of Isaiah's words. Surely it is understood when Jesus appeals to this text in Matthew's gospel there is no qahal (assembly) or ecclesia (church) apart from Christ. There is no light to the world in us absent Jesus, the light who came into the world (see John 1). He is the foundation, cornerstone, capstone of his body. We do not open eyes. God does.

 

[Josheb]

Hi Eleanor

What is your understanding of this passage? Is this not what I said?

Galatians 3:2-3This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?

Here again the causality of the hearing is assigned to God and not the cognitive faculties or the volitional agency of the unregenerate sinner. Paul explicitly stated his audience had "begun in the Spirit." and he did not say "begun in your flesh," "begun with your fleshly faculties," or

I might challenge your interpretation of scripture. If you don't like that, please don't respond. This will not be the run of the mill Calvinism-Arminianism thread. At least I'll try to test everything that can be legitimately questioned, even if it's not popular.

Dave

And I have suggested you start with challenging your own interpretations rather than assuming an ability to do so with others. That would make this discussion atypical, uncommonly dissimilar to the "run of the mill Calvinism-Arminianism thread."

Why is the Galatians 3:2-3 not read exactly as written? Why are inferences about the unregenerate sinner's fleshly faculties read into the text when nothing in the entire chapter remotely suggests such an interpretation? Why have two verses not been read in the context of the explicitly stated covenant context? How is an attempt to apply those two verses to unregenerate non-believers made when the verses are explicitly stated to be about the saved and regenerate believers in Galatia? Why, after my repeated exhortation to always identify and apply the audience identification, has that been ignored?

Challenge your own interpretations first. Challenge them on the fly, as we post, before posting a viewpoint, an interpretation, in response to someone else's post.

 

[Carbon]

And I have suggested you start with challenging your own interpretations rather than assuming an ability to do so with others. That would make this discussion atypical, uncommonly dissimilar to the "run of the mill Calvinism-Arminianism thread."

Challenge your own interpretations first. Challenge them on the fly, as we post, before posting a viewpoint, an interpretation, in response to someone else's post.

 

[Josheb]

This is supposed to be a discussion different than the run of the mil Calvinist-Arminian one..........

​

This will not be the run of the mill Calvinism-Arminianism thread. At least I'll try to test everything that can be legitimately questioned, even if it's not popular.

​

Dave​

.........but we see the same old, run of the mill, failures in exegesis all too common, all to frequent in Cal v Arm discussions.

@Dave,

If you wish to have a different discussion, then do not make the same mistakes in exegesis. Make sure every single verse written about the already saved and regenerate believer is never applied to the unsaved, unregenerate sinfully enslaved and dead non-believer. Makes sure every verse written about someone living within a Christological covenant is not applied to those outside that covenant. Verify the audience identification before posting. Make sure any verse stating God's causality is not ignored - make sure the divine causality is acknowledged, and the sinner's causality is not inferred instead. Check any verse to make sure volitional agency is not being read into the verse before posting it in support of this op. Any use of any verse violating these precepts is legitimately questionable and deserving of testing. Make sure the responses to the monergists' posts are not the same boilerplate eisegesis with which all of us here are already too familiar.

That will make this discussion atypical, different than the run of the mill cyberspace Cal v Arm conversation.

Besides, If I understand your posts correctly, you are not Arminian. You're more of a Traditionalist or Provisionist. Yes?

 

[Dave]

Actually, what it says is, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing BY (or through) the Word of God. Likely, you think it makes no difference. But your mistaken reference demonstrates your thinking, and your synergistic mindset at work in your hermeneutic.

Romans 10:17 is not so easily distorted in the Greek. What it gives is, in effect, two separate sentences joined by a conjunction, "and". Not just one use of 'hearing'. The first "hearing" is genitive noun, properly translated, "hearing", such as one might call a gerund, née verb made into a noun. The second identifies the same hearing (a nominative noun, not at all genetive) as necessarily resulting from the word of God —not as necessarily resulting from anyone's decision about what to do with what they have heard from the Word of God. What is designated there is that the hearing results from God's Word. It doesn't even mention someone deciding what to do with what they have heard, but that what God's Word can do is to cause one to hear.

It pleases me considerably to consider that the indwelling of the Spirit of God is directly related to hearing the Word of God. Without the human will as a middleman in the process.

I disagree Josheb. It does speak about what to do after hearing. Hearing by faith means exactly that. Galatians 3:5 is speaking along the same lines. Faith is a decision, and it is active, and it comes by hearing the Word of God. And yes, it still means that they need to hear it first.

to quoter someone else...

"Essentially, Romans 10:17 suggests that faith is not an innate quality, but rather a response to hearing and believing the message of the Gospel. It implies an active engagement with the word of God, not just passive reception."

"The "hearing of faith" (Galatians 3:5) implies an active, receptive state of mind and heart where one receives the message of the Gospel and responds with trust and belief, leading to spiritual transformation and empowerment."

If you can please give me a similar break down of this next passage, it would be much appreciated. Are the people that Paul is speaking about here saved, or not saved?

Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.

Dave

 

[Dave]

Intellectual assent is not salvific.

I never said that it was. You did with you're use of John 3:3.

As it has been written: “There is none righteous, not even one; there is none understanding; there is none seeking after God. All have turned away; together they have become worthless (Rom. 3:10-12 BLB). That was written to Christians about the unsaved.

Psalm 10:4
The wicked, in his haughtiness, does not seek Him. There is no God in all his schemes.

Psalm 14:1
The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”

That would make all atheists fools. Very odd thing upon which to build a soteriology.

Matthew 13:11-15
And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: 'You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.' For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’

Atheists do not want to be cured. Atheists deny the affliction. They cannot be healed because they do not understand. The secrets of the kingdom have not been given to them. The disciples did not fully grasp what Jesus meant. Few if any Christians fully understand the gospel new in their new birth. God saved us in spite of ourselves, not because of ourselves.

What does Paul means here, in Romans 7:18

"For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.

Sounds like Paul is saying that in his flesh there is a desire to do what is right, but he is unable to do it. Right?

Dave

 

[Dave]

Reminder to myself. I'm on post 41

 

[Eleanor]

I disagree Josheb. It does speak about what to do after hearing. Hearing by faith means exactly that. Galatians 3:5 is speaking along the same lines.
Faith is a decision,

Faith is a gift (Php 1:29, Ac 13:48, 18:27, 2 Pe 1:1, Ro 12:3).

And it's not given to everyone.

 

[Rescued One]

The Bible tells us no one CAN come to Jesus unless the Father grants it to them. John 6:63-65 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and d life. But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) ANd he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

Our faith is not based on our wanting. It is IN the person and work of Jesus. So you have asked a question that really cannot be answered with a simple yes or no. There are no particulars given and no one can presume the condition of a persons heart or know what God is doing.

A person can't produce that faith with an unregenerate heart or a regenerate heart. The heart that has been regenerated possesses that faith because it has been given to them. Eph 2 By grace you have been saved through faith, and that is not of yourselves but is a gift of God---. The unregenerated heart cannot produce anything that leads to life, for it is dead in trespasses and sins. It cannot bring itself to life.

AMEN!

 

[Rescued One]

I have found in evangelism here in the UK that people generally do not have a gist of the gospel. I have come across far more people who think that if you do your best to live a good life, or if you are sincere in your beliefs, or if your parents were Christians, then you will be OK with God. Sadly, very few have the biblical idea of all humans being sinners in God's sight, in need of a Saviour.

My maternal grandmother thought a person was born a Christian or something else as if it was genetic.

 

[Josheb]

I disagree Josheb. It does speak about what to do after hearing. Hearing by faith means exactly that.

The text does not say, "hearing by faith." It plainly states, "hearing by the word of Christ." Therefore,

​

I might challenge your interpretation of scripture. If you don't like that, please don't respond. This will not be the run of the mill Calvinism-Arminianism thread. At least I'll try to test everything that can be legitimately questioned, even if it's not popular.

Challenge your own interpretation. Post #47 starts out with an interpretation of the verse that is not supported by the text.

Furthermore, the faith through which a person is saved is gifted to that person by God (Eph. 2:8) and not a faith inherent to their own sinful flesh. Do not read fleshly faith into the text. That would be another interpretational error - an addition placed onto the text that is not supported by the text - on your part. Comparing others' prospective errors with errors of our own is nonsensical.

What Post 47 argues Romans 10 says is, "So salvific faith comes from the fleshly hearing of the sinfully dead and enslaved unregenerate non-believer, and that hearing is by faith, the faith of the sinful flesh." That's what we'd read if we placed your views into that verse. That is NOT what the verse states.


Now I tried to walk through this before in the prior op. Your first error is assuming this verse is about salvation from sin. It is not. These people - the people to whom the verse was written, the verse about whom the verse was written are all already saved people. The salvation about which Paul is writing has absolutely nothing to do with salvation from sin. In the prior thread you acknowledged these are already saved people. You acknowledged the letter was written to already saved people. What was not acknowledged is the fact the verse is written ABOUT already saved people. You are taking a verse written ABOUT already saved people and you're trying to apply it to unsaved people. You are taking a verse ABOUT another salvation and you're trying to apply it to salvation from sin.

In other words, there are five or six exegetical errors you are committing and continually committing despite the errors having already been brought to your attention multiple times.

In other words, you are replicating the same old run of the mill discussion had thousands of times in discussion boards. Sto making the same exegetical errors. Start challenging your own views before seeking to challenge others. Stop measuring others' views with erroneous views.

I am currently renovating my house. Before I got into psychology and entrepreneurship, I was a carpenter. I owned a small home improvement business. I have half a dozen different levels. One of them is not true. ANYONE can tell whether a level is true by simply placing the level on a surface and then turning the level over. Both sides of the level have to read the exact same measure. The bubbles cannot vary from one side to the other. It would not matter what I measured with that level, I'd have no way of knowing whether anything measured was level because my level is not true. So, this morning I took the center bubble compartment out of the level, cleaned out the space, put it back in, and then adjusted the level on a level surface so that both bubbles no read the same. I checked it against a level known to be true. You're seeking to measure what you believe are other's mistakes but you're doing it with errors of your own. Your exegesis is woefully messy. You're trying to take verses written ABOUT saved regenerate believers and apply them to unsaved unregenerate non-believers. It's a huge categorical error. Mountain lions are not seaweed. Alligators are not igneous rocks. Comparisons between the two are irrational. You're taking verses ABOUT salvation from temporal conditions faced in the first century and trying to apply them to salvation from sin. Along the way a bunch of stuff is added to the text like, "hearing by faith," by which you really mean "hearing by fleshly sinful flesh."

That is not what the text states. What it states is "hearing by the word of Christ." That word is living and active. It is able to penetrate and divide the soul and spirit. The word is foolishness to the natural man but it is the power of God in those God is saving. God is always the assigned cause. Scripture never assigns causality to the sinful, unregenerate flesh or the volition of the unregenerate sinner's flesh.

You may quote Romans 10 all you like but until you surmount the problem of the stated contexts the only result will be the run of the mill conversations has thousands of times in internet soteriology boards.

It does speak about what to do after hearing.

Yes, it tells the saints, the already saved and regenerate brethren, what to do after having heard the word of Christ. What it does not speak about is the unsaved. What it does not speak about is those living outside a God-initiated Christological covenant. It says nothing about those people.

Romans 10:11-17
For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes in him will not be disappointed." For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on him; for "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things." However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "LORD, who has believed our report?" So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.


Whoever believes in him will not be disappointed. Great. Show me the person scripture explicitly states believes in Jesus with His sinful unregenerate flesh and I will then read verse 11 with that in mind. Absent any such precedent in the Bible I will ask you to discard that interpretation and understand the question in light of the fact scripture never provides an explicit example of anyone anywhere ever doing that.

Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Great. Show me the person scripture explicitly states calls on Jesus with His sinful unregenerate flesh and I will then read verse 11 with that in mind. Absent any such precedent in the Bible I will ask you to discard that interpretation and understand the question in light of the fact scripture never provides an explicit example of anyone anywhere ever doing that.

Otherwise, "There is no one who calls on Your name, who stirs himself to take hold of You; For You have hidden Your face from us and have surrendered us to the power of our wrongdoings" (Isa. 64:7) is the context for Paul's writing and you need to challenge your interpretation of the verse, not mine.

How then can they call on him in whom they have not believed? They cannot.

Who has believed our report? No one! The only ones who ever believed were those in whom God was already at work for the purpose of their salvation. Faith, which is a gift of God and not of ourselves, comes from hearing and hearing comes by the word of Christ. Most people are ever hearing but never understanding because God has not provided them with the keys to the mysteries of the kingdom. He has, instead, handed them over to darkness and lusts on top of their already debilitating (lethal and enslaving) condition of sin.


And I can provide multiple examples of people believing God after God has been at work within them to that effect. The problem is this is your op, and the burden is on you to provide an example of the opposite: one person coming to God one his own with nothing more than the faculties of his sinfully dead and enslaved flesh, understanding the word of God salvifically with the ears and brain of sinful flesh that has been given over to its lusts, and calling upon Jesus with the volition of the same sin-filled, dead and enslaved, flesh.

Just one explicit example.

Challenge yourself before challenging anyone else. Go through the Bible and find at least one explicit example. Not one you infer to be the case. An explicitly stated example.

But Josh, there is no such example; you're unjustly limiting the discussion.

Am I? Do you not believe we should start with what is explicitly stated and build first upon that? Or do you think we should start with eisegetic inferences, add more inferential readings on top of that and build our doctrines that way?

Start with what is explicitly stated.

Show me the person explicitly stated to come to God salvifically, believing salvifically because of his sinful flesh and outside a monergistically initiated Christological covenant.

Or.....

Ask yourself why it is you believe in something that is not found explicitly stated in scripture.

Well, the Trinity is not explicitly stated.

No, that is not true. The word "trinity" may not be found in the Bible but there are several verses making equivalent statements between God and Jesus. More importantly, an appeal to silence (argumentum ex silentio) is not what you want to be building your argument on. Neither is a false equivalence between the silence of a sinful non-believer making himself a salvific believer and the Trinity.

Romans 10 does not state what you say it says. Paul is quoting from the prophets, not writing in a vacuum (and definitely not writing in the context of doctrines developed hundreds of years after his death).

 

[Josheb]

to quoter someone else...

Yeah, no. I'm not doing that. Either the word of God, properly exegeted is our standard or it is not. I will not participate or collaborate with secondhand and third-hand commentaries by others. The rules of exegesis are long-held and their veracity well-established. They exist to provide a forensic, scientific analysis of scripture for the express purpose of discerning the true meaning of the word and building consensus among everyone, regardless of what they believe prior to entering the examination.

• Words written about the already saved regenerate believers do not apply to unsaved, unregenerate, non-believers.
• Words written about those living in a monergistically-initiated Christological covenant do not apply to those living outside that covenant.

Every time those two principles are ignored the use of the epistolary will be incorrect. It does not matter who ignores the contexts. He or she will always end up with a bad exegesis. That same guideline applies as much to me as it does to you (and everyone else in this thread).

 

[Josheb]

If you can please give me a similar break down of this next passage, it would be much appreciated. Are the people that Paul is speaking about here saved, or not saved?

Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.

Dave

Verse 9, the specific verse used to justify synergist soteriology is written about the brethren. Verse 17, another verse commonly used to justify synergism is written about those in whom the word of Christ already dwells. Every mention of the word "you" applies to the brethren.

Paul is also writing about the salvation of "them," those he has previously labeled as his "kinsmen," and identified as Israel. He qualified those audience identifiers by stating not all Israel is Israel. He has said all Israel will be saved, but also not all Israel is Israel. Logic, therefore, dictates that the Israel that will be saved is the Israel that is Israel, not the Israel that is not Israel.

The word Israel means "those in whom God perseveres." Look it up.

The word "Israel," NEVER means "those who use their sinfully dead and enslaved flesh to believe God."


So there is absolutely nothing in the entire three-chapter narrative about the remnant of Paul's day that would be saved that applies to sinfully dead and enslaved non-believers using their flesh to get saved. There are, conversely, many verses in that same three-chapter exposition that necessarily and inescapably identify the relevant groups as those already living in a monergistically-initiated Christological covenant relationship with God, those in whom God is already at work for their salvation from sin, and not once does a single word in those entire three chapters ever assign causality to the sinful flesh or the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner's volition.



I can go line by line and exegete the text but 1) that will take several posts, 2) I have to go so it can't be done now and, most importantly, you have not provided a reason for doing so and I will not collaborate with any attempts to shift the onus away from you and your op. Prove Romans 10 is NOT about those God is working in within a Christological covenant first. Challenge your own interpretations as you do so.

 

[Josheb]

I never said that it was.

Just covering the base.

You did with you're use of John 3:3.

Prove it.

What does Paul means here, in Romans 7:18

"For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.

Sounds like Paul is saying that in his flesh there is a desire to do what is right, but he is unable to do it. Right?

Dave

Nope. We're not changing the subject until you prove I said John 3:3 supported intellectual assent being salvific.


Paul just stated he possessed volitional agency in his flesh BUT he could not find how to perform good. He could choose his favorite flavor of ice cream and which sandals to buy, but he was not able to find any good within that ability to will.

Today we call that "total depravity."

 

[Dave]

Only if God endowed it to do so for that purpose.

Isaiah 6:8-10
Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me!" He said, "Go, and tell this people: 'Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but do not understand.' "Render the hearts of this people insensitive, their ears dull, and their eyes dim, otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and return and be healed."

God rendered the hearts of those people insensitive. These people could listen and listen and listen and listen and listen and listen and keep on listening but never perceive what they were hearing. That inability happened at God's hand. In other words, what God did to those people was piled on top of the already-existing effects of sin. Romans 1 tells us God gave those who denied His power over to their lusts. What lusts do God deniers have? According to John the lusts of this world, "lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," do not come from God.

All the unregenerate sinner has is his flesh. He has no lust for God that comes from God. God must give him that lust, that desire.

Why does God need to put up a road block for the construction of a road that only He Himself can build? It would seem to me that if God needed to move first, the road block would already be in place. Just do nothing.

"Render the hearts of this people insensitive, their ears dull, and their eyes dim,

otherwise

they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and return and be healed."

Digression: I found the appeal to AA curious because if you genuinely understand the problem of addiction then you know the fundamental problem within the problem is lust. The addict puts one thing and only one thing on his wishlist:

I disagree. It may start as lust, or having fun with what appears to have no negative consequences, but people do bottom out, and they don't go to any of the anonymous' to find God, but to get help.

Here's how the other gospel writers reported Jesus' use of the Isaiah text.

Mark 4:10-12
As soon as He was alone, His followers, along with the twelve, began asking Him about the parables. And He was saying to them, "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, so that while seeing, they may see and not perceive, and while hearing they may hear and not understand, otherwise they might return and be forgiven."

Unless the mystery has been given to a person they can listen and listen and listen but never understand. When Paul writes, "faith comes by hearing," he is writing about the already saved, regenerate believers and not unregenerate non-believers. Unregenerate non-believers can hear and hear and listen and listen to no avail because they have not been given what is necessary to understand what they hear.

Luke 8:9-10
His disciples began questioning Him as to what this parable meant. And He said, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is in parables, so that seeing they may not see and hearing they may not understand.

Unless an ability to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God had been granted to a person, they could not understand what they heard. No amount of listening would in and of itself provide understanding. A person must be born anew from above to see the kingdom of God. Absent that new birth they are ever seeing but never perceiving, ever hearing but never understanding. The natural man cannot understand the things of the Spirit. He thinks they are foolish.

The disciples could not understand some of the parables, like the Sower. They needed it to be explained in plain speaking. One could make the argument that it's the parables themselves that make people unable to see of hear them. It's not like these disciples were born again. They only had the Holy Spirit upon them, and that limited their understanding already.

Acts 28:23-28
When they had appointed a day for him, they came to him at his lodging in greater numbers. From morning till evening, he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets. And some were convinced by what he said, but others disbelieved. And disagreeing among themselves, they departed after Paul had made one statement: “The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet: “‘Go to this people, and say, “You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.” For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed; lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’ Therefore, let it be known to you that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen.”

Despite having Jesus explained to them by a Pharisee using the Law and the prophets some who not believe. Does Luke attribute their disbelief to the sinners' volition? or to their cognitive faculties? No! Luke explicitly reports Paul explaining their lack of salvific response as a function of God's hardening. God blinded them. God deafened them. God hardened then and the stated reason for His doing so was so they would not be able to perceive and understand, repent and be healed.

They were already dead. God was not mistreating the animated corpses to whom Paul spoke.

Many years later Paul would write about this same condition after having preached the gospel in scores of synagogues throughout the Roman empire.

Romans 11:7-10
What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.” And David says, “Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them; let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see and bend their backs forever.”

In addition to the effects of sin that every human experiences, God made them stupid. Only the elect obtained and understanding. The rest God hardened. God had retribution for them, not salvation.

What would have happened if God didn't harden them so that they could still hear and see? Would they be able to believe? That seems to be what Isaiah is saying in 6:8-10. Rendered so that they could not see and hear, lest they believe, right? I'm not sure what piling on means. Are dead made more dead, etc., or are they're being able to believe if not hardened a hypothetical?

These scriptures leave us with only two options:

Either there are two groups of people, the saved and the unsaved or there are three groups of people: the saved, the Jewish unsaved, and the Gentile unsaved. If the latter then perhaps everything the Law, David, Isaiah, Jesus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul said applies only to the Hebrews/Jews and not to anyone else. Maybe it applied only to those groups of people in those specific times and circumstances. Maybe none of it is generalizable to any other time or any other people.

The problem is Paul did not make soteriological divisions between Jews and Gentiles. He said ALL have sinned, ALL have been hardened and given over to their lusts, and no one seeks God for salvation from a God they deny for a sickness they do not believe exists.

All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God Romans 3:23 is a justification statement. Romans 3:11-13 (I'm sure, implied). What do you think about the statement that 'they all turned aside'? What did they turn aside from that made them that way, implying that they were not always like that?

As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one."

Dave

 

[Dave]

Faith is a gift (Php 1:29, Ac 13:48, 18:27, 2 Pe 1:1, Ro 12:3).

And it's not given to everyone.

Eleanor, do you think that I'm arguing against God's sovereignty? I'm just asking questions. Isn't this way better than beating up on Arminians?

Dave

 

[Rescued One]

@Josheb
Thank you for posts #53 and #54! Lacking the education you have, I have a lot of studying to do!

 

[Rescued One]

This thread is an amazing help to me since I can't attend church or Bible study. It's actually better than the Bible studies I attended in the past.