“Examining your claim by Scripture isn’t straddling lanes—it’s Berean obedience.”
Resolving Problematic Interpretations of Scripture
- Thread starter GWH
- Start date
-
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.
Anyone going to challenge my assertions of scripture or you just going to mock?
- Proverbs 9:7–8 — mockers hate correction.
- Proverbs 13:1 — a mocker refuses reproof.
- Psalm 1:1 — mockers stand outside the path of righteousness.
- 2 Peter 3:3 — mockers follow their own desires, not God’s Word.
Well, saying you affirm that "God initiates, enlightens, convicts, draws, and grants the opportunity to repent, and sinners either cooperate or resist" is NOT consistent with saying "God shows no favoritism is about impartial judgment, not about human autonomous ability; Paul is saying God judges Jew and Gentile by the same standard, not that sinners possess equal native power to repent or resist" (#249) or "Paul never concludes from this that sinners possess an ability to choose atheism or faith" and "revelation produces accountability, not ability" (#250), or "the Law makes sinners conscious of sin, not capable of overcoming it" (#251), etc.
Perhaps I am again misunderstanding what you mean, but again you make me nervous, because instead of getting hung up on natural, autonomy and inability, Romans doubles down on human accountability--which is due to God-given IF/MFW/Faith that can choose either to cooperate with God's Word/Will--or not, so failure to repent is not due to God's lack of enabling.
There is no contradiction between saying “God initiates, enlightens, convicts, draws, and grants the opportunity to repent” and saying “Romans never grounds human accountability in autonomous ability.”
Those are two different categories in Paul: (1) God’s initiating work, which makes repentance possible, and (2) human responsibility, which makes refusal culpable.
What Romans never does is insert a third category — native moral free will — as the cause of either response.
Accountability in Romans is always grounded in revelation, not in autonomy.
God reveals Himself (Rom 1:19–20),
God’s Law confronts the conscience (Rom 2:14–15),
God’s kindness leads toward repentance (Rom 2:4), and the Gospel is God’s power unto salvation (Rom 1:16).
But Paul is explicit that the natural man cannot submit (Rom 8:7), cannot receive the things of the Spirit (1 Cor 2:14), and does not seek God (Rom 3:11).
So when sinners resist, the blame is real — but the blame is never because God withheld ability; it is because sinners love darkness (John 3:19).
When sinners repent, the credit is real — but the credit is never because they exercised autonomous IF; it is because repentance is granted (2 Tim 2:25), faith is given (Phil 1:29), and God calls effectually.
Accountability is not the same thing as ability.
Romans grounds accountability in God’s revelation, not in human autonomy, and that is why your MFW interpretation cannot be sustained by the text.
There is indeed contradiction, because God gives humans MFW, which means how they exercise it is their native, natural and autonomous choice, not God's, which means they are accountable/responsible for not cooperating with God's desire/leading for sinners to repent and be saved.
God is culpable for creating humans, but do you object to being created human rather than animal or programmed?
Only those who wind up in hell will wish they had never been born human and then chose to spurn God's love.
The main purpose for writing Romans is to persuade people to repent/submit/receive/seek so they will wind up in heaven,
and doing so is the non-meritorious choice to cooperate with God's condition for granting/giving forgiveness.
Accountability implies ability/MFW (John 6:29).
Are we meaning the same thing?
We’re disagreeing about ability.
Your model: Accountability → implies ability → implies native MFW → implies autonomous cooperation.
Paul’s model: Revelation → implies accountability → but ability to respond is given, not native.
That’s the whole tension.
“Accountability implies ability” — Scripture doesn’t say that.
Paul says humans are accountable because:
creation reveals God (Rom 1:20)
conscience reveals God’s law (Rom 2:15)
the gospel reveals God’s righteousness (Rom 1:16–17)
But he also says humans:
cannot submit (Rom 8:7)
cannot receive (1 Cor 2:14)
do not seek God (Rom 3:11)
So accountability comes from revelation, not native ability.
John 6:29 doesn’t teach autonomous ability.
You cited John 6:29: “This is the work of God: that you believe…”
But in the same chapter Jesus says:
No one can come unless the Father draws (John 6:44)
No one can come unless it is granted (John 6:65)
So belief is the required response, but the ability to make that response is granted, not native.
At first I thought maybe we were conflicting in a lexiconic issue, but we are in agreement there.
So the conflict isn’t about faith — it’s about MFW vs. God‑given ability.
This I want to sort out because if I am wrong I need to know. But so far I have been given no insight from anyone but mockery.
No one will search the scripture for the facts in translation. They have all puffed up their pride and attacked me. Hardly the attitude of folks who claim they have the right of it. Walk with me down this road so I may better understand.
Brother, the claim that sinners possess a native, God‑given moral ability to choose repentance or faith is not taught in Scripture, and my insistence on grounding doctrine in the text is right; Paul says the natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit (1 Cor 2:14), the mind set on the flesh cannot submit to God’s law (Rom 8:7), and no one seeks God (Rom 3:11). Repentance is granted (2 Tim 2:25), faith is given (Phil 1:29), and the heart is opened by the Lord (Acts 16:14).
When a system inserts an ability the Scriptures deny, it must be corrected, because adding human autonomy where God has not placed it misleads believers and shifts confidence away from the Word.
I am not accusing you, but I am confronting the error: accountability in Romans is grounded in revelation, not in an inherent moral capacity. If you want to walk through the Greek texts, I will do so, because correction must be rooted in the Scriptures themselves, not in the defense of a system.
Well, my nervousness stems from your modifying MFW with the terms "native, autonomous and natural" in a way that sounds like it is nullifying the God-given ability to choose to repent or have saving faith, which is the main teaching in Scripture and antidote to the tulip poisonous system. My model is Paul's model; I have never used those terms, but I have always said "God-given MFW".
1 Cor 2:14, Rom 8:7 and Rom 3:11 refer to sinners who refuse to repent, meaning that they could, but don't. These Scriptures plus
2 Tim 2:25, Phil 1:29 and Acts 16:14 should be harmonized with Scriptures indicating that God loves and wants to save everyone:
Gen. 3:6, Deut. 30:19, Josh. 24:15, 2Chron. 7:14, Matt. 4:17, 7:7, 23:37, John 3:16, 6:39, Acts 2:38, 16:31, 28:27, Rom. 1:20, 2:4, 11&15, 3:22, 4:23-24, 5:15&19, 10:9-13, 11:32, Gal. 3:8&14, Eph. 2:8-9, Phil. 2:10-11, Col. 1:19-23, 1Tim. 2:3-4, 1John 4:7-12, Rom. 5:6-8, Matt. 5:44&48, Gal. 5:6&14, Eph. 3:17b-19, Eph. 5:2, etc.
Romans reveals that all sin (Rom. 3:23) and that God gives all the opportunity to be saved (Rom. 6:23) via satisfying His condition/IF, which is exercising MFW to cooperate with Him/His Word as revealed, which to Paul was mainly Rom. 3:20-5:11. Describing that capacity as "inherent" must not mean it is nullified. Regarding the Greek texts, I trust the expert translators to have done a good job, so that is unnecessary.
Hope we agree.
When I hear someone say that my use of “native, autonomous, and natural” somehow nullifies the God‑given ability to repent or believe, I immediately recognize that they’re speaking from a soft‑Calvinist / compatibilist framework, not Paul’s model. My position has always been simple: MFW is God‑given, not autonomous, not self‑generated, and not independent of His Word or His Spirit. I’ve never taught inherent human ability; I’ve taught God‑enabled moral freedom.
When I read 1 Cor 2:14, Rom 8:7, and Rom 3:11, I don’t see sinners who could repent but simply refuse. I see exactly what Paul says: the natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit, the fleshly mind cannot submit, and no one seeks God. These are statements of inability, not stubbornness. So when someone insists “they could, but don’t,” I know immediately they’re operating from an Arminian / semi‑Pelagian anthropology that treats inability as mere unwillingness.
I harmonize 2 Tim 2:25, Phil 1:29, and Acts 16:14 with the universal‑offer passages — but I do it without collapsing into the idea of universal ability. God loves all, God offers salvation to all, and God commands all to repent — but Paul is clear that repentance is granted, faith is given, and the heart is opened. My opponent quotes these texts but doesn’t integrate them, which is the hallmark of semi‑Pelagian synthesis: affirming grace verbally while denying it functionally.
When he says “describing that capacity as inherent must not mean it is nullified,” he reveals his system plainly. That is semi‑Pelagian anthropology — the belief that humans possess inherent ability to repent and believe, and that grace merely assists. But Paul never teaches inherent ability. He teaches Spirit‑enabled ability.
And when he says he “trusts the translators” and doesn’t need the Greek, that tells me he’s operating from experiential Arminianism, not exegesis. The entire debate hinges on Greek verbs like δύναται (“cannot”), ἔκζητῶν (“seeks”), and ψυχικός (“natural man”). Refusing to examine the Greek while making claims about ability is simply not Paul’s method.
So when I put all of this together, I see clearly that he’s defending a hybrid of Arminian universal ability, semi‑Pelagian inherent capacity, and Pentecostal experiential hermeneutics, wrapped in the language of “God‑given MFW.” But that’s not Paul’s model. Paul teaches inability in the flesh, ability only through the Spirit, repentance granted, faith given, and the heart opened by God. That’s the model I follow — not Calvinism, not Arminianism, not semi‑Pelagianism. Just Paul.
Okay, I think we are agreeing on MFW again as long as you do not intend to nullify it by use of those adjectives.
A little nervousness remains because of you not realizing that saying sinners "refuse" to repent obviously implies that they "could" repent, which is why there is no excuse for not doing so. IOW, not repenting is due to human unwillingness, NOT to God's, who wants them to repent and be saved (1Tim. 2:3-4).
And God's love for all connotes Him giving MFW/repentability to all/universal accountability.
Also, whether one views capacity/MFW as inherent or not, it must not be nullified per Scripture.
Trusting expert translators affirms the need for knowledge of Greek. Why would you think it doesn't?!
Occasionally it has been helpful to know what the translators did not convey, such as the significance of gender
in references to Petros, rock and this in Matt. 16:18. If you know something significant not indicated by translations,
please share it.
Finally, why is "God-given MFW" not synonymous with "ability through the Spirit"?!
Whenever Scripture says people refuse to repent, it presupposes that they could repent, because refusal only has moral meaning if the person had genuine MFW and real repentability.
This is why God’s universal desire for all to be saved (1 Tim 2:3–4) and His universal command to repent (Acts 17:30) require universal capacity, not selective enablement.
God’s love for all necessarily implies He grants all humans the moral freedom and ability to respond, which is the basis for universal accountability.
Greek knowledge doesn’t replace trusting translators—it explains why they translate as they do, and sometimes reveals nuances they cannot show, such as gender agreement in Matthew 16:18 or Ephesians 2:8.
And “God‑given MFW” is not the same as “ability through the Spirit,” because MFW is part of human creation in God’s image (given to all), while Spirit‑empowerment is given only to believers for sanctification, not for initial repentance or faith.
In Scripture, the Spirit strengthens obedience, but the ability to repent is grounded in God’s universal call, universal love, and universal moral freedom.
Because the operation of the Holy Spirit was not revealed in much detail until the NT, I can accept that distinction between God-given MFW and HS-driven moral sanctification as folks learn the didache following conversion (which is what Paul presumably was referring to in 1 Cor 2:14, Rom 8:7 and Rom 3:11).
Re Matt. 16:18, my understanding is that the genders of the nouns Petros (m), rock (f) and faith (f) preclude Peter from being Pope.
Not sure what you refer to regarding Eph. 2:8.
I see what you’re trying to do by distinguishing between God‑given moral free will and the Holy Spirit’s sanctifying work, and I agree with you that the Old Testament doesn’t reveal the Spirit’s internal operation with the clarity we get in the New Testament.
But when you connect that distinction to passages like 1 Corinthians 2:14, Romans 8:7, and Romans 3:11, I don’t think those texts actually support the point you’re making.
Romans 3:11 describes humanity in Adam, not believers learning the didachē after conversion.
Romans 8:7 does deal with the moral impotence of the flesh, but Paul applies that condition to unbelievers and to believers who are walking carnally, not specifically to post‑conversion sanctification.
And 1 Corinthians 2:14 is about spiritual illumination—how the Spirit enables a person to grasp divine truth—not about moral transformation.
So while your overall distinction between MFW and Spirit‑driven sanctification is coherent, the verses you’re using don’t really anchor that distinction exegetically.
They describe different aspects of human inability, and Paul’s point in each passage is broader than the specific application you’re making.
On Matthew 16:18, I understand what you’re saying about the gender of the nouns, but I don’t think the gender argument alone settles the issue.
It’s true that Petros is masculine and petra is feminine, and that Jesus uses two different words.
That does show a distinction, but the shift in gender is also required simply because Peter is a man—Jesus couldn’t call him “Petra” without using a feminine noun for a male.
So while the gender difference is real, it doesn’t automatically preclude Peter from being the referent of the “rock.”
The larger context—Jesus naming him, the confession he made, and the structure of the sentence—has to be weighed alongside the grammar.
As for Ephesians 2:8, the point I was referring to is the gender of the demonstrative pronoun touto (“that”).
It’s neuter, while both grace and faith are feminine.
Because of that mismatch, touto cannot grammatically refer to “faith,” which means Paul is not saying that faith itself is the gift. Instead, the pronoun points back to the entire salvation‑by‑grace‑through‑faith reality as the gift of God.
That’s the grammatical issue I was highlighting.
I think you are illustrating the truth that translation only transfers the task of interpretation from one language to another.
From that point correct understanding requires harmonizing relevant Scriptures, which is more art/not as scientific as translating.
I remember making this point with Paul Thompson while we were studying Ephesians--which I only mention because I am proud of remembering something--but do you agree with the need to discern meaning in English using hermeneutics after translating from Greek?
I hope so, because I consider harmonizing Scripture to be perhaps my main spiritual/logical gift that I can contribute.