Resolving Problematic Interpretations of Scripture

[OMC]

If you agree, then I guess you must not be a tulipist as something you said on other threads indicated,

that statement is an improper judgment according to Scripture, because it assigns a spiritual identity (“you must not be a tulipist”) based on a single inference rather than on the person’s actual confession, and Scripture forbids judging a brother’s heart, motives, or spiritual standing on the basis of partial information (John 7:24; 1 Cor. 4:5).
It is legitimate to evaluate doctrine, and it is legitimate to say, “Your statement does not align with TULIP,” but it is not legitimate to conclude, “Therefore you must not be a tulipist,” because that crosses from doctrinal discernment into identity judgment, which Scripture reserves for God.
Paul distinguishes between judging teaching (1 Cor. 14:29) and judging a person’s heart or category (Rom. 14:4), and your example falls into the latter. The proper biblical approach is: evaluate the claim, not the person; correct the doctrine, not assign a label; and let the brother state his own theological identity rather than inferring it.

 

[GWH]

your emphasis on logic as a tool for answering atheistic objections is fully consistent with the biblical pattern of how truth is known.

Yes, and it is also useful for answering tulipist objections as we will see and hopefully agree as we continue by reposting #9:

Perhaps before proceeding any further it would be helpful to mention the interpretation of Scripture that objects to TULIP,
which viewpoint may be termed Moral Free Will (MFW or MFWism) and described as follows:

M – moral requirement, meaning that God's requirement/condition for salvation (GRFS) is righteousness, which presumes sinners are morally accountable.

F – free faith, meaning that GRFS or condition for attaining righteousness is through/via faith/IF the sinner believes God's Word,
which implies sinners are enabled to repent, seek salvation/grace and believe the Gospel of Christ’s atonement--or not.

W – will, meaning that the essence of saving faith is the desire to cooperate with God (or not), and choosing to cooperate with/love God
opens the door of a sinner's heart to the entrance/indwelling of Christ's loving Holy Spirit.

Here again is the opposing dogma of tulipism:

T – total depravity, meaning that all souls are unable to seek salvation.

U – unconditional election, meaning that souls cannot satisfy a divine condition (such as faith or repentance), but God elects to save some while damning the rest to hell.

L – limited atonement, meaning that Christ died to pay the penalty of sin only for the elect souls.

I – irresistible grace, meaning that elect souls cannot resist God’s will for them to believe and be saved.

P – perseverance of the saints, meaning that the elect cannot repudiate their salvation and commit apostasy.

How shall we begin to discuss which is the better belief, politely presenting Scripture interpreted holistically or in context?

 

[GWH]

that statement is an improper judgment according to Scripture, because it assigns a spiritual identity (“you must not be a tulipist”) based on a single inference rather than on the person’s actual confession, and Scripture forbids judging a brother’s heart, motives, or spiritual standing on the basis of partial information (John 7:24; 1 Cor. 4:5).
It is legitimate to evaluate doctrine, and it is legitimate to say, “Your statement does not align with TULIP,” but it is not legitimate to conclude, “Therefore you must not be a tulipist,” because that crosses from doctrinal discernment into identity judgment, which Scripture reserves for God.
Paul distinguishes between judging teaching (1 Cor. 14:29) and judging a person’s heart or category (Rom. 14:4), and your example falls into the latter. The proper biblical approach is: evaluate the claim, not the person; correct the doctrine, not assign a label; and let the brother state his own theological identity rather than inferring it.

Yes, I try to discuss doctrine, and I am trying to ascertain whether you identify/agree with the doctrine of tulipism or mfwism.
I suggested this discussion so that you would state which you claim instead of me having to discern which, so please go ahead
and state, unless you want to wait until we discuss the pros and cons of each a little further (per #202).

 

[OMC]

Yes, and it is also useful for answering tulipist objections as we will see and hopefully agree as we continue by reposting #9:

Perhaps before proceeding any further it would be helpful to mention the interpretation of Scripture that objects to TULIP,
which viewpoint may be termed Moral Free Will (MFW or MFWism) and described as follows:

M – moral requirement, meaning that God's requirement/condition for salvation (GRFS) is righteousness, which presumes sinners are morally accountable.

F – free faith, meaning that GRFS or condition for attaining righteousness is through/via faith/IF the sinner believes God's Word,
which implies sinners are enabled to repent, seek salvation/grace and believe the Gospel of Christ’s atonement--or not.

W – will, meaning that the essence of saving faith is the desire to cooperate with God (or not), and choosing to cooperate with/love God
opens the door of a sinner's heart to the entrance/indwelling of Christ's loving Holy Spirit.

Here again is the opposing dogma of tulipism:

T – total depravity, meaning that all souls are unable to seek salvation.

U – unconditional election, meaning that souls cannot satisfy a divine condition (such as faith or repentance), but God elects to save some while damning the rest to hell.

L – limited atonement, meaning that Christ died to pay the penalty of sin only for the elect souls.

I – irresistible grace, meaning that elect souls cannot resist God’s will for them to believe and be saved.

P – perseverance of the saints, meaning that the elect cannot repudiate their salvation and commit apostasy.

How shall we begin to discuss which is the better belief, politely presenting Scripture interpreted holistically or in context?

 

[OMC]

Yes, I try to discuss doctrine, and I am trying to ascertain whether you identify/agree with the doctrine of tulipism or mfwism.
I suggested this discussion so that you would state which you claim instead of me having to discern which, so please go ahead
and state, unless you want to wait until we discuss the pros and cons of each a little further (per #202).

Brother, I do not identify with TULIPism, because its five points require system‑level inferences that contradict plain Scripture, but I do affirm what you call MFWism — the biblical pattern that God universally initiates grace and revelation, and sinners retain genuine moral free will to respond or resist (Deut. 30:19; Matt. 23:37; Acts 7:51; Rom. 2:4–11).
My position is simply the text: God desires all to be saved (1 Tim. 2:3–4), Christ died for all (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2), the Spirit convicts all (John 16:8), and people are judged according to their response (Rom. 2:6–11).
That is not Calvinism, and it is not system‑theology; it is the canonical pattern of grace offered and faith received.
So yes — if you are asking which doctrinal category I align with, I stand with MFW, because it is the only model that preserves both God’s universal grace and Scripture’s repeated insistence on human responsibility.

 

[OMC]

Good morning by the way. So rude of me to not properly greet you today, I apologize.

 

[GWH]

Brother, I do not identify with TULIPism, because its five points require system‑level inferences that contradict plain Scripture, but I do affirm what you call MFWism — the biblical pattern that God universally initiates grace and revelation, and sinners retain genuine moral free will to respond or resist (Deut. 30:19; Matt. 23:37; Acts 7:51; Rom. 2:4–11).
My position is simply the text: God desires all to be saved (1 Tim. 2:3–4), Christ died for all (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2), the Spirit convicts all (John 16:8), and people are judged according to their response (Rom. 2:6–11).
That is not Calvinism, and it is not system‑theology; it is the canonical pattern of grace offered and faith received.
So yes — if you are asking which doctrinal category I align with, I stand with MFW, because it is the only model that preserves both God’s universal grace and Scripture’s repeated insistence on human responsibility.

I am relieved to see you say that you reject tulipism in favor of mfwism, which also preserves God's love and justness.
Your clarification of what I misunderstood on other threads makes further discussion on this thread unnecessary.
I was going to continue by citing post #29 next:

At this point there have been three main posts discussing tulip vs. mfw:

1. timf posted #8 citing Scripture supporting mfw,
2. Jon777 posted #14 citing Scripture supporting tulip,
3. tablet123 posted #17 & 18 citing Scripture supporting mfw.

Mfw wins, 2 to 1.
(Just kidding :^)

I will try to collate the three posts into one coherent discussion. Perhaps it will work if we consider one letter of tulip at a time.

Regarding total depravity:

1. timf - Rom. 10:17, "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." This indicates that a soul/sinner/person who
has the opportunity to hear the Gospel will be able to believe it.
2. Jon777 - "You were dead through the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work among those who are disobedient." (Eph. 2:1-2)
3. tablet123 - 1Tim. 2:3-4, "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."
1Tim. 4:10, "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe."
2Pet. 3:9, "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
Rev. 22:17, "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."

Besides collating the posts, my role will be attempting to harmonize the Scriptures, so here is my commentary regarding T,
which involves paraphrasing.

2. Before learning God's revelation, normal human adults sin/disobey God's moral will and are spiritually dead/unsaved,
1. But when they have the opportunity to hear the Gospel, they may choose to believe it or not, although
3. God's intentional will is for everyone to believe the truth and be saved, not desiring for anyone to reject Him and be damned,
but for whosoever to be willing to cooperate with Him. [cf. Matt. 23:37]

Comments before I proceed with U?
(If you have lost interest because agreement is boring, that is understandable :^)

 

[OMC]

I am relieved to see you say that you reject tulipism in favor of mfwism, which also preserves God's love and justness.
Your clarification of what I misunderstood on other threads makes further discussion on this thread unnecessary.
I was going to continue by citing post #29 next:

At this point there have been three main posts discussing tulip vs. mfw:

1. timf posted #8 citing Scripture supporting mfw,
2. Jon777 posted #14 citing Scripture supporting tulip,
3. tablet123 posted #17 & 18 citing Scripture supporting mfw.

Mfw wins, 2 to 1.
(Just kidding :^)

I will try to collate the three posts into one coherent discussion. Perhaps it will work if we consider one letter of tulip at a time.

Regarding total depravity:

1. timf - Rom. 10:17, "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." This indicates that a soul/sinner/person who
has the opportunity to hear the Gospel will be able to believe it.
2. Jon777 - "You were dead through the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work among those who are disobedient." (Eph. 2:1-2)
3. tablet123 - 1Tim. 2:3-4, "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."
1Tim. 4:10, "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe."
2Pet. 3:9, "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
Rev. 22:17, "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."

Besides collating the posts, my role will be attempting to harmonize the Scriptures, so here is my commentary regarding T,
which involves paraphrasing.

2. Before learning God's revelation, normal human adults sin/disobey God's moral will and are spiritually dead/unsaved,
1. But when they have the opportunity to hear the Gospel, they may choose to believe it or not, although
3. God's intentional will is for everyone to believe the truth and be saved, not desiring for anyone to reject Him and be damned,
but for whosoever to be willing to cooperate with Him. [cf. Matt. 23:37]

Comments before I proceed with U?
(If you have lost interest because agreement is boring, that is understandable :^)

I read most of these last night and i'm good with all of this, lets continue.

 

[GWH]

I read most of these last night and i'm good with all of this, lets continue.

Okay. At this point Jon777 posted several times in support of tulip, to which I replied in #38 as follows:

Thanks for sharing The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (TRDOP) in posts #30-36, Jon. I will reply in the order received,
but in order to keep the discussion manageable, at this point/time I might omit elements that do not seem directly related
to the T in TULIP/Total Depravity. I will number the paragraphs in case that is helpful for your next reply.

1. You began by citing Acts 16:14, which says the Lord opened Lydia’s heart, apparently wanting to imply that the Lord does not want to open every persons heart, which is a false interpretation in light of 1Timothy 2:3-4, which indicates that God wants to open everyone’s heart—prompting the question, “why is everyone not like Lydia?” What is TRDOP’s answer?

2. Next you cited Phil. 2:12-13, which instructs Christians to work out their own salvation, because God works in them to desire and do his good will, so the question prompted by this is “how does working out one’s own salvation harmonize with God’s working within a person?” TRDOP’s answer?

3. Then you say that if 1Tim. 2:3-4 speaking of God’s intentional will is true, then salvation will be universal, overlooking/omitting God’s permissive will, which allows sinners to reject His grace.

4. You cited Daniel 4:35, which seems similar to what Paul wrote in Romans 9:20, so I will reply to that NT passage, which teaches that God is sovereign and can do whatever He wants. You cited Psalm 135:6 and Job 23:13 as also saying this. We who believe God wants to save everyone agree with this.

5. The next relevant Scripture you cited was Genesis 8:21, which says that God will not destroy life on earth again, even though every human sins when they attain the age of accountability. We agree.

6. 1John 5:19 is prooftexted, but with verse 18 as conext we can see that it means the whole world other than those born of God is under Satan’s control. We agree.

7. 2Cor. 4:4 says Satan blinds the minds of unbelievers. Romans 6:16-17 provides context for this prooftext enabling us to see that we are slaves to the one we choose to obey. Do you agree?

8. You cited 2Tim. 2:24-26, which teaches that Christians must not quarrel, but instead hope that God will lead them to repent, come to know the truth and be saved, echoing 1Tim. 2:3-4. Hope you agree.

9. Romans 3:10-12 says that no one is righteous or seeks God. The meaning of this quote is stated by Paul: Both Jews and Gentiles are sinners in need of God’s salvation. We agree.

10. Romans 7:18 is cited for calling sinful desires the “sinful nature”, which wars against desire to do good or obey God’s will, and Rom. 7:19-8:1 says the war can be won by those who are IN Christ. Agreed?

I this is enough for one whack at a reply. Let us see how Jon is taking this exercise in dialectical theology.

Over.

Over...

 

[OMC]

1. You began by citing Acts 16:14, which says the Lord opened Lydia’s heart, apparently wanting to imply that the Lord does not want to open every persons heart, which is a false interpretation in light of 1Timothy 2:3-4, which indicates that God wants to open everyone’s heart—prompting the question, “why is everyone not like Lydia?”

Using Lydia’s opened heart (Acts 16:14) to imply that God does not want to open every person’s heart is an improper judgment, because Scripture explicitly states that God does desire all people to be saved (1 Tim. 2:3–4),
Christ draws all (John 12:32), the Spirit convicts all (John 16:8), and God commands all everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). Acts 16:14 describes how God opened Lydia’s heart, not whom God is willing to open; the text never says Lydia was uniquely chosen while others are excluded.
The proper question, as you said, is not “Why didn’t God open everyone’s heart?” but Why do some resist what God offers to all — a question Scripture answers repeatedly: people “refuse” (Matt. 23:37), “resist the Holy Spirit” (Acts 7:51), “reject the grace of God” (Gal. 2:21), “love darkness rather than light” (John 3:19), and “do not receive the love of the truth” (2 Thess. 2:10). Thus Acts 16:14 supports MFW, not TULIP: God opens hearts, but humans can resist; Lydia responded, others did not.

 

[OMC]

2. Next you cited Phil. 2:12-13, which instructs Christians to work out their own salvation, because God works in them to desire and do his good will, so the question prompted by this is “how does working out one’s own salvation harmonize with God’s working within a person?”

Philippians 2:12–13 is not a contradiction but a two‑sided reality of salvation: believers “work out” their salvation because God is already “working in” them to desire and to do His will.
Paul is not describing two competing forces but one cooperative dynamic — God initiates, empowers, and sustains the inward transformation, and the believer responds by living out what God has produced.
This harmonizes perfectly with moral free will: God does not force obedience, but He enables the willing heart (Rom. 2:4; Gal. 5:25).
The command to “work out” shows real human responsibility; the assurance that “God works in you” shows real divine empowerment. Thus Phil. 2:12–13 refutes TULIP’s idea of irresistible grace and supports the biblical pattern that salvation is a cooperative relationship — God acts first, and the believer responds freely, faithfully, and continually.

 

[OMC]

3. Then you say that if 1Tim. 2:3-4 speaking of God’s intentional will is true, then salvation will be universal, overlooking/omitting God’s permissive will, which allows sinners to reject His grace

Your point is correct: claiming that 1 Tim. 2:3–4 implies universal salvation because it expresses God’s intentional will is a category mistake, because Scripture clearly distinguishes between what God wills in love and what God permits in human freedom.
Paul says God “desires all people to be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4), Peter says He is “not willing that any should perish” (2 Pet. 3:9), and Ezekiel says God takes “no pleasure in the death of the wicked” (Ezek. 33:11), yet Jesus laments that people refuse Him (Matt. 23:37), Stephen says people resist the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51), and Paul says some “reject the grace of God” (Gal. 2:21). These are not contradictions; they are the biblical expression of moral free will: God’s intentional will is universal salvation, but His permissive will allows sinners to resist the grace He genuinely offers to all. Thus your correction stands — the argument for universalism ignores the biblical reality that God’s love is universal, but human response is not.

 

[OMC]

4. You cited Daniel 4:35, which seems similar to what Paul wrote in Romans 9:20, so I will reply to that NT passage, which teaches that God is sovereign and can do whatever He wants. You cited Psalm 135:6 and Job 23:13 as also saying this. We who believe God wants to save everyone agree with this.

Your point stands: citing Daniel 4:35, Psalm 135:6, or Job 23:13 to argue that “God is sovereign, therefore He does not desire to save everyone” is a misuse of sovereignty texts, because those passages teach God’s unlimited right to act, not His selective refusal to love. Scripture everywhere affirms God’s sovereignty — He does whatever He pleases (Ps. 135:6), none can stay His hand (Dan. 4:35), His purpose stands (Job 23:13) — and we who believe God wants to save everyone fully agree with this, because sovereignty and universal saving desire are not opposites. The Bible holds both truths together: God is absolutely sovereign, and God genuinely desires all to be saved (1 Tim. 2:3–4; 2 Pet. 3:9; Ezek. 33:11).
Sovereignty explains how God can save; love explains why He wants to save; moral free will explains why all are not saved. Thus your correction is scriptural: sovereignty does not imply selective love — it is the foundation that makes God’s universal saving desire meaningful, powerful, and trustworthy.

 

[OMC]

5. The next relevant Scripture you cited was Genesis 8:21, which says that God will not destroy life on earth again, even though every human sins when they attain the age of accountability. We agree.

Genesis 8:21 simply affirms what you said: God acknowledges that every human being will sin once moral awareness develops, yet He sovereignly chooses never again to destroy all life as He did in the flood.
There is no disagreement here. The verse does not teach selective grace, selective love, or selective regeneration; it teaches God’s ongoing patience toward a universally sinful race — the same patience Paul describes when he says God’s kindness is meant to lead every person to repentance (Rom. 2:4).
In fact, Genesis 8:21 harmonizes with God’s universal saving desire (1 Tim. 2:3–4) and His grief over the death of the wicked (Ezek. 33:11). So yes, we agree: Genesis 8:21 supports the MFW pattern — humanity is universally sinful, God is universally patient, and salvation depends on whether a person responds to grace or resists it.

 

[GWH]

Using Lydia’s opened heart (Acts 16:14) to imply that God does not want to open every person’s heart is an improper judgment, because Scripture explicitly states that God does desire all people to be saved (1 Tim. 2:3–4),
Christ draws all (John 12:32), the Spirit convicts all (John 16:8), and God commands all everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). Acts 16:14 describes how God opened Lydia’s heart, not whom God is willing to open; the text never says Lydia was uniquely chosen while others are excluded.
The proper question, as you said, is not “Why didn’t God open everyone’s heart?” but Why do some resist what God offers to all — a question Scripture answers repeatedly: people “refuse” (Matt. 23:37), “resist the Holy Spirit” (Acts 7:51), “reject the grace of God” (Gal. 2:21), “love darkness rather than light” (John 3:19), and “do not receive the love of the truth” (2 Thess. 2:10). Thus Acts 16:14 supports MFW, not TULIP: God opens hearts, but humans can resist; Lydia responded, others did not.

Yes, and a related question is "Why are the hearts of tulipists not open to God's omnilove and justness?";
"Why do tulipists reject the unlimited/universal grace of God?"

IMO the reason seems to be both historical and psychological: 1. Historically, Calvin adopted Augustine's tulip doctrine, thereby infecting Protestant Christianity with this heretical virus, and 2. Tulipist teachers apparently do an effective job of brain-washing congregants to believe that tripe. I also assume their parents must be dictatorial and arbitrary rather than loving and fair.

 

[GWH]

Philippians 2:12–13 is not a contradiction but a two‑sided reality of salvation: believers “work out” their salvation because God is already “working in” them to desire and to do His will.
Paul is not describing two competing forces but one cooperative dynamic — God initiates, empowers, and sustains the inward transformation, and the believer responds by living out what God has produced.
This harmonizes perfectly with moral free will: God does not force obedience, but He enables the willing heart (Rom. 2:4; Gal. 5:25).
The command to “work out” shows real human responsibility; the assurance that “God works in you” shows real divine empowerment. Thus Phil. 2:12–13 refutes TULIP’s idea of irresistible grace and supports the biblical pattern that salvation is a cooperative relationship — God acts first, and the believer responds freely, faithfully, and continually.

Yes, the person who chooses to believe God's Word cooperates happily, whereas those who choose to believe the lie of Satan are bound for hell unless they repent before dying.

 

[OMC]

6. 1John 5:19 is prooftexted, but with verse 18 as conext we can see that it means the whole world other than those born of God is under Satan’s control. We agree.

Yes, we agree: 1 John 5:19 simply teaches that everyone who is not born of God lies under the sway of the evil one, and verse 18 is the key that prevents misuse of the passage. John’s contrast is binary — the one born of God is kept by God and does not live in sin, while the whole world (meaning all outside the new birth) remains under Satan’s influence. This is not a proof of selective grace or selective regeneration; it is simply the moral landscape of humanity: those who respond to God’s grace are delivered from the evil one (Col. 1:13), and those who resist remain under his power (Acts 26:18). Thus 1 John 5:18–19 fits perfectly with MFW — God offers grace universally, but only those who receive it are transferred out of the devil’s domain.

 

[GWH]

Your point stands: citing Daniel 4:35, Psalm 135:6, or Job 23:13 to argue that “God is sovereign, therefore He does not desire to save everyone” is a misuse of sovereignty texts, because those passages teach God’s unlimited right to act, not His selective refusal to love. Scripture everywhere affirms God’s sovereignty — He does whatever He pleases (Ps. 135:6), none can stay His hand (Dan. 4:35), His purpose stands (Job 23:13) — and we who believe God wants to save everyone fully agree with this, because sovereignty and universal saving desire are not opposites. The Bible holds both truths together: God is absolutely sovereign, and God genuinely desires all to be saved (1 Tim. 2:3–4; 2 Pet. 3:9; Ezek. 33:11).
Sovereignty explains how God can save; love explains why He wants to save; moral free will explains why all are not saved. Thus your correction is scriptural: sovereignty does not imply selective love — it is the foundation that makes God’s universal saving desire meaningful, powerful, and trustworthy.

Amen, the root cause of tulip misunderstanding of God's sovereignty appears to be/stem from Rom. 9:11-24, which we will get to in a few posts.

 

[OMC]

7. 2Cor. 4:4 says Satan blinds the minds of unbelievers. Romans 6:16-17 provides context for this prooftext enabling us to see that we are slaves to the one we choose to obey. Do you agree?

Yes, I agree: 2 Cor. 4:4 teaches that Satan blinds the minds of unbelievers, but Romans 6:16–17 provides the crucial context — people become slaves to the one they choose to obey.
Paul says plainly: “you are slaves of the one you obey,” whether sin or righteousness, and then adds that believers “became obedient from the heart,” showing a real, voluntary response to grace.
This means Satan’s blinding is not an arbitrary, unconditional act; it is the consequence of a person’s chosen allegiance.
Scripture consistently teaches this pattern: those who reject truth become darkened (John 3:19; Eph. 4:18), and those who receive truth are enlightened (John 1:9; Acts 26:18). Thus 2 Cor. 4:4 fits perfectly with moral free will — Satan blinds because people yield to him, and God opens hearts because people respond to Him.

 

[GWH]

Genesis 8:21 simply affirms what you said: God acknowledges that every human being will sin once moral awareness develops, yet He sovereignly chooses never again to destroy all life as He did in the flood.
There is no disagreement here. The verse does not teach selective grace, selective love, or selective regeneration; it teaches God’s ongoing patience toward a universally sinful race — the same patience Paul describes when he says God’s kindness is meant to lead every person to repentance (Rom. 2:4).
In fact, Genesis 8:21 harmonizes with God’s universal saving desire (1 Tim. 2:3–4) and His grief over the death of the wicked (Ezek. 33:11). So yes, we agree: Genesis 8:21 supports the MFW pattern — humanity is universally sinful, God is universally patient, and salvation depends on whether a person responds to grace or resists it.

Yes, and this dependence or condition of saving faith should NOT be construed to imply merit or being saved by works.
Since when does opening a Christmas present mean the child deserved it rather than a lump of coal in their stocking?!