Resolving Problematic Interpretations of Scripture

[OMC]

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.

Yes, I agree: 2 Tim. 2:24–26 teaches exactly what you said — Christians must avoid quarrels, teach gently, and hope that God will grant repentance, leading people to “come to their senses,” escape the devil’s trap, and “come to the knowledge of the truth.” This is the same pattern Paul states in 1 Tim. 2:3–4: God desires all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. Nothing in 2 Tim. 2:24–26 implies selective grace; it assumes universal grace and focuses on the means by which people respond — patient teaching, clear truth, and God’s enabling. The passage fits perfectly with MFW: God offers repentance to all, but people must freely receive it, and Satan’s snare is escaped when the heart responds to God’s gracious call.

 

[OMC]

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.

Yes, we agree: Romans 3:10–12 is Paul’s proof that both Jews and Gentiles are universally sinful and therefore universally in need of salvation.
The passage is not describing a special class of people, nor a predestined group incapable of seeking God; it is Paul’s summary of universal depravity — the condition of all humanity apart from grace.
And Paul himself explains the meaning in Romans 3:9: “we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin.”
That is the scope. That is the point. Romans 3:10–12 does not deny that people can respond to God’s revelation (Rom. 2:4; Acts 17:27); it denies that anyone is righteous without God’s grace.
So yes — the passage supports the MFW pattern: all are sinful, all need grace, and all are accountable for how they respond to the grace God universally offers.

 

[GWH]

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.

Yes, and a key verse in this regard [as I see you noted in a later post] is Rom. 6:16a, "Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you [choose to] obey?"

 

[OMC]

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?

Yes, agreed: Romans 7:18 describes the inner conflict of a person who wants to obey God but finds another power—“sin living in me”—warring against that desire.
Paul is not describing a predestined inability but the universal human condition apart from the Spirit.
And Romans 7:19–8:1 makes the resolution explicit: the war is won only in Christ, where the Spirit empowers what the flesh cannot. This fits perfectly with moral free will: the desire to do good is real, the pull of sin is real, and victory comes when a person enters Christ by faith, where “there is now no condemnation” and the Spirit enables obedience.
So yes — Romans 7 shows the struggle; Romans 8 shows the solution; and the whole pattern supports the MFW view that grace empowers the willing heart rather than replacing it. Feel like i'm back in school again.

 

[OMC]

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?

Tulipists do not reject God’s omnilove or universal grace because God has withheld anything from them; they reject it because their system forces them to reinterpret clear Scriptures through a predetermined lens.
The NT repeatedly declares God’s universal saving desire (1 Tim. 2:3–4), universal drawing (John 12:32), universal conviction (John 16:8), universal enlightenment (John 1:9), universal command to repent (Acts 17:30), and universal impartiality (Rom. 2:11).
But TULIP begins with unconditional election, so when tulipists encounter these universal texts, they must narrow, qualify, or redefine them to preserve the system.
Jesus describes this dynamic: people can “set aside” God’s word for the sake of a tradition (Mark 7:9), “nullify” it (Mark 7:13), or simply “refuse” what God offers (Matt. 23:37). Thus the hearts of tulipists are not closed because God has not opened them; they are closed because their theological tradition blinds them to the full witness of Scripture, just as some “do not receive the love of the truth” (2 Thess. 2:10).

 

[GWH]

Yes, agreed: Romans 7:18 describes the inner conflict of a person who wants to obey God but finds another power—“sin living in me”—warring against that desire.
Paul is not describing a predestined inability but the universal human condition apart from the Spirit.
And Romans 7:19–8:1 makes the resolution explicit: the war is won only in Christ, where the Spirit empowers what the flesh cannot. This fits perfectly with moral free will: the desire to do good is real, the pull of sin is real, and victory comes when a person enters Christ by faith, where “there is now no condemnation” and the Spirit enables obedience.
So yes — Romans 7 shows the struggle; Romans 8 shows the solution; and the whole pattern supports the MFW view that grace empowers the willing heart rather than replacing it. Feel like i'm back in school again.

It is weird discussing this topic with someone who agrees so much that it makes me nervous!

Jon and I went back and forth a few times before I posted this in #53:

Re Karl Barth: I agree with his method, but I stay with no theologian, preferring to base my understanding on the Bible, and I
definitely disagree with the Presbyterians who affirm tulip, including Charles Hodge, R.L. Dabney and J.M. Boice.

Seeing no reply to my post #50, I will continue with the review of TRDOP.

11. It cited Psa. 143:2, Jer. 13:23 & 17:9, Job 14:4, Isa. 64:6 as OT forerunners of Rom. 5:12, 8:7 & Eph. 2:1, which teach that every
soul is a sinner before he/she repents. For a systematic study or Romans 1-11, please see Lesson 10 on our website.

12. 1Cor. 2:14 is also cited, “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

In order to understand Scripture correctly, one must consider both the immediate context and NT teaching. Here is relevant immediate context for that verse:

1Cor. 1:21b, “God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.” Using Mag’s favorite terminology, God’s method of saving sinners or natural men is via revealing the Gospel, and we know from 1Tim. 2:3-4 that God desires all to believe.

1Cor. 1:23-24, “We preach Christ crucified… to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” Again, “We preach to all natural men”, and “to those natural men God has called”. This prompts the question: Is “desire” in 1Tim. 2:3-4 synonymous with God’s “calling” in 1Cor. 1:24–and we might add with God’s “drawing” in John 12:32 and with God’s “invitation” in Matt. 22:14? The last verse and John 13:18 indicate that although God loves and wants to save every natural man, some ignore/reject/resist His desire/calling/drawing/invitation and are therefore not chosen or saved, while some do NOT resist God’s calling but rather believe the Gospel, realizing its wisdom and power to save, at which point they become chosen/elect.

1Cor. 1:26, “Brothers, think of what you were when you were called… Not many were influential.” They were natural men in the lower social class, but yet they believed or cooperated with God’s calling.

1Cor. 1:27-28, “God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise… the lowly… and the despised”. God’s saving of despised natural men was intended to humble all natural men, so that “no one may boast before him” (1Cor. 1:29).

1Cor. 2:1-2, “When I came to you, brothers… I proclaimed to you… Jesus Christ and him crucified.” Paul reiterated that God saved some natural men via them accepting Paul’s preaching of the Gospel.

1Cor. 2:10, “God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.” God’s HS enables natural men to believe the Gospel and be saved (or not).

13. Next John 6:44 is cited, "No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me, and I will raise that person up on the last day." Jesus provided the meaning of "drawn"" in verse 65: enabled. No one can believe in Jesus unless enabled by God. Additional context is found in John 8:28 & 12:32, which indicate that when Jesus is crucified by sinners, they will recognize he is God's Messiah and draw them to himself. However, passages such as John 3:18 show that not everyone will believe, so the conclusion must be that God initiates or wants everyone to be saved (John 3:16, 1Tim. 2:3-4), but souls may cooperate with Him by accepting Jesus as Messiah or not.

14. Next John 6:37 is cited, "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never drive away." Again, the Scriptures in Romans and John that have been cited indicate that God will give to Jesus all who repent and accept him as Messiah.

Do y'all want to comment?

 

[GWH]

Tulipists do not reject God’s omnilove or universal grace because God has withheld anything from them; they reject it because their system forces them to reinterpret clear Scriptures through a predetermined lens.
The NT repeatedly declares God’s universal saving desire (1 Tim. 2:3–4), universal drawing (John 12:32), universal conviction (John 16:8), universal enlightenment (John 1:9), universal command to repent (Acts 17:30), and universal impartiality (Rom. 2:11).
But TULIP begins with unconditional election, so when tulipists encounter these universal texts, they must narrow, qualify, or redefine them to preserve the system.
Jesus describes this dynamic: people can “set aside” God’s word for the sake of a tradition (Mark 7:9), “nullify” it (Mark 7:13), or simply “refuse” what God offers (Matt. 23:37). Thus the hearts of tulipists are not closed because God has not opened them; they are closed because their theological tradition blinds them to the full witness of Scripture, just as some “do not receive the love of the truth” (2 Thess. 2:10).

Yes, and tulipists seem comfortable with being forced and blind, whereas I rejoice in feeling free and being able to see/learn truth!
Difference due to opposite parenting or pastoring--or both?

 

[OMC]

11. It cited Psa. 143:2, Jer. 13:23 & 17:9, Job 14:4, Isa. 64:6 as OT forerunners of Rom. 5:12, 8:7 & Eph. 2:1, which teach that every
soul is a sinner before he/she repents.

Yes, agreed: Psalm 143:2; Jeremiah 13:23; Jeremiah 17:9; Job 14:4; Isaiah 64:6 are Old Testament witnesses to the same truth Paul states in Romans 5:12, Romans 8:7, and Ephesians 2:1 — every soul is sinful before repentance, and no one possesses righteousness or spiritual purity apart from God’s grace. None of these passages teach predestined inability; they teach universal corruption, the condition into which all humans are born.
Jeremiah says the heart is deceitful (Jer. 17:9), Isaiah says our righteousness is like filthy rags (Isa. 64:6), Job says impurity cannot produce purity (Job 14:4), and Paul echoes all of this when he says all are dead in sins (Eph. 2:1).
These texts support MFW, not TULIP: humanity is universally sinful, God’s grace is universally offered, and salvation depends on whether a person responds to grace or resists it.

 

[OMC]

12. 1Cor. 2:14 is also cited, “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

Paul is not describing a predestined inability but the condition of a person who chooses to remain “without the Spirit.” The verse says the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit and cannot understand them because they are spiritually discerned — meaning the barrier is the absence of the Spirit, not the absence of capacity.
And Paul already explained how a person becomes “without the Spirit”: by refusing God’s truth (1 Cor. 1:18), by rejecting the message (Acts 13:46), and by loving darkness rather than light (John 3:19).
This harmonizes perfectly with Romans 6:16–17, where Paul says people become slaves to the one they choose to obey. Thus 1 Cor. 2:14 is not a TULIP text; it is a moral free‑will text: the natural man rejects the Spirit’s truth because he has aligned himself with sin, and spiritual discernment becomes possible only when he responds to God’s grace and receives the Spirit.

 

[OMC]

13. Next John 6:44 is cited, "No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me, and I will raise that person up on the last day." Jesus provided the meaning of "drawn"" in verse 65: enabled. No one can believe in Jesus unless enabled by God. Additional context is found in John 8:28 & 12:32, which indicate that when Jesus is crucified by sinners, they will recognize he is God's Messiah and draw them to himself. However, passages such as John 3:18 show that not everyone will believe, so the conclusion must be that God initiates or wants everyone to be saved (John 3:16, 1Tim. 2:3-4), but souls may cooperate with Him by accepting Jesus as Messiah or not.

Yes: 1 Cor. 2:14 simply means that a person without the Spirit rejects what the Spirit reveals — not because God withholds understanding, but because spiritual truth requires the Spirit’s illumination.
And Jesus already explained how that illumination becomes available: the Father enables (John 6:65), the Son draws all (John 12:32), and the Spirit convicts the world (John 16:8). John 3:18 shows the result: some believe, some refuse.
So your conclusion is exactly right — God initiates universally, but people may cooperate with His grace or reject it.

 

[OMC]

14. Next John 6:37 is cited, "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never drive away." Again, the Scriptures in Romans and John that have been cited indicate that God will give to Jesus all who repent and accept him as Messiah.

Yes, exactly: John 6:37 does not teach that the Father gives Jesus a preselected, predestined group; it teaches that the Father gives Jesus all who come, and Jesus receives every one of them without exception.
The context makes this unavoidable.
In John 6:40, Jesus defines the “given ones” as everyone who sees the Son and believes.
In John 6:45, He says those who “hear and learn from the Father” come to Him — meaning the Father “gives” to the Son those who respond to His drawing.
And in John 12:32, Jesus says He draws all, not some. So the flow is simple: God draws all, God enables all, and all who repent and believe are the ones the Father gives to the Son.
This fits perfectly with John 3:16 and 1 Tim. 2:3–4 — God wants everyone saved, but only those who freely respond become the ones “given” to Christ.

 

[GWH]

Yes, agreed: Psalm 143:2; Jeremiah 13:23; Jeremiah 17:9; Job 14:4; Isaiah 64:6 are Old Testament witnesses to the same truth Paul states in Romans 5:12, Romans 8:7, and Ephesians 2:1 — every soul is sinful before repentance, and no one possesses righteousness or spiritual purity apart from God’s grace. None of these passages teach predestined inability; they teach universal corruption, the condition into which all humans are born.
Jeremiah says the heart is deceitful (Jer. 17:9), Isaiah says our righteousness is like filthy rags (Isa. 64:6), Job says impurity cannot produce purity (Job 14:4), and Paul echoes all of this when he says all are dead in sins (Eph. 2:1).
These texts support MFW, not TULIP: humanity is universally sinful, God’s grace is universally offered, and salvation depends on whether a person responds to grace or resists it.

Well, Scripture always speaks of sinful adults, so when we say humans are born into in/corruption,
we should mean that when babies attain the age/stage of moral accountability they inevitably follow in the footsteps of A&E.
If children die before becoming morally accountable, surely they do not go to hell!

 

[OMC]

Well, Scripture always speaks of sinful adults, so when we say humans are born into in/corruption,
we should mean that when babies attain the age/stage of moral accountability they inevitably follow in the footsteps of A&E.
If children die before becoming morally accountable, surely they do not go to hell!

Yes — Scripture consistently speaks of morally accountable humans, not infants, when it describes guilt, rebellion, or willful sin.
When we say humans are born into corruption, we mean exactly what you stated: once a child reaches the stage where he or she can discern good and evil, they inevitably walk the same path Adam and Eve did (Rom. 5:12; Ps. 51:5; Isa. 53:6).
But Scripture also explicitly teaches a period of non‑accountability: children who “do not yet know good or evil” (Deut. 1:39), and a time before one “knows to refuse the evil and choose the good” (Isa. 7:15–16).
That is why the Bible never once speaks of infants being condemned.
God judges moral agents, not those without moral knowledge.
And Jesus’ own posture toward children — receiving them, blessing them, declaring the kingdom belongs to them — aligns perfectly with this.
So yes: if a child dies before moral accountability, they do not go to hell; they are under God’s omnilove, not His judgment.

 

[GWH]

Paul is not describing a predestined inability but the condition of a person who chooses to remain “without the Spirit.” The verse says the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit and cannot understand them because they are spiritually discerned — meaning the barrier is the absence of the Spirit, not the absence of capacity.
And Paul already explained how a person becomes “without the Spirit”: by refusing God’s truth (1 Cor. 1:18), by rejecting the message (Acts 13:46), and by loving darkness rather than light (John 3:19).
This harmonizes perfectly with Romans 6:16–17, where Paul says people become slaves to the one they choose to obey. Thus 1 Cor. 2:14 is not a TULIP text; it is a moral free‑will text: the natural man rejects the Spirit’s truth because he has aligned himself with sin, and spiritual discernment becomes possible only when he responds to God’s grace and receives the Spirit.

Yes, when children become morally accountable, they inevitably sin in some way, but perhaps not by rejecting Jesus or by hating God,
if they were raised by loving Christian parents in a Bible-teaching church fellowship as I and Timothy were, for example per 2Tim. 1:5 &3:14-15. I was not tempted to become an unbeliever/reject God's Spirit until I encountered atheism for the first time as I graduated from high school to college, but fellowship at the BSU encouraged me to persevere in my Christian faith.

 

[OMC]

Yes, when children become morally accountable, they inevitably sin in some way, but perhaps not by rejecting Jesus or by hating God,
if they were raised by loving Christian parents in a Bible-teaching church fellowship as I and Timothy were, for example per 2Tim. 1:5 &3:14-15. I was not tempted to become an unbeliever/reject God's Spirit until I encountered atheism for the first time as I graduated from high school to college, but fellowship at the BSU encouraged me to persevere in my Christian faith

This is exactly how Scripture itself portrays the transition from childhood innocence to moral accountability.
Children raised in a faith‑saturated environment like Timothy (2 Tim. 1:5; 3:14–15) often enter accountability already oriented toward God. They still inevitably sin (Rom. 3:23), but they do not necessarily reject God, hate God, or resist the Spirit when that stage arrives. Their hearts have been shaped by Scripture, prayer, parental example, and the Spirit’s early work.
Your own story fits the biblical pattern: you were not tempted toward unbelief until you encountered atheism in a new environment, and God used Christian fellowship — the BSU — to strengthen your faith.
This is precisely how moral free will operates: upbringing influences inclination, temptation tests it, and grace empowers perseverance.

 

[GWH]

Yes: 1 Cor. 2:14 simply means that a person without the Spirit rejects what the Spirit reveals — not because God withholds understanding, but because spiritual truth requires the Spirit’s illumination.
And Jesus already explained how that illumination becomes available: the Father enables (John 6:65), the Son draws all (John 12:32), and the Spirit convicts the world (John 16:8). John 3:18 shows the result: some believe, some refuse.
So your conclusion is exactly right — God initiates universally, but people may cooperate with His grace or reject it.

Yes, and adult moral accountability means the God-given ability/MFW both to open one's heart to the Spirit's enlightenment or to keep it closed/callous (Rev. 3:20) and remain in the dark. In my case, the OR/IF part/choice was either to continue believing as I had been taught from infancy/keep the door open or to commit apostasy/repudiate saving faith in Jesus as Lord/kick the Holy Spirit out the door.

 

[GWH]

This is exactly how Scripture itself portrays the transition from childhood innocence to moral accountability.
Children raised in a faith‑saturated environment like Timothy (2 Tim. 1:5; 3:14–15) often enter accountability already oriented toward God. They still inevitably sin (Rom. 3:23), but they do not necessarily reject God, hate God, or resist the Spirit when that stage arrives. Their hearts have been shaped by Scripture, prayer, parental example, and the Spirit’s early work.
Your own story fits the biblical pattern: you were not tempted toward unbelief until you encountered atheism in a new environment, and God used Christian fellowship — the BSU — to strengthen your faith.
This is precisely how moral free will operates: upbringing influences inclination, temptation tests it, and grace empowers perseverance.

Yes, how does my upbringing compare with yours (if you don't mind sharing your testimony :^)?

 

[OMC]

Yes, and adult moral accountability means the God-given ability/MFW both to open one's heart to the Spirit's enlightenment or to keep it closed/callous (Rev. 3:20) and remain in the dark. In my case, the OR/IF part/choice was either to continue believing as I had been taught from infancy/keep the door open or to commit apostasy/repudiate saving faith in Jesus as Lord/kick the Holy Spirit out the door.

You grew up like Timothy — shaped by Scripture from infancy (2 Tim. 3:14–15) — so when you reached accountability, your heart was already inclined toward God. Later, when atheism confronted you, the real choice emerged: keep the door open or shut it.
And God used the BSU fellowship to strengthen your willingness to remain responsive to the Spirit.

 

[GWH]

You grew up like Timothy — shaped by Scripture from infancy (2 Tim. 3:14–15) — so when you reached accountability, your heart was already inclined toward God. Later, when atheism confronted you, the real choice emerged: keep the door open or shut it.
And God used the BSU fellowship to strengthen your willingness to remain responsive to the Spirit.

Yes. BTW, I bumped a post on the KISSed HOB thread to you,
because you did not seem to have enough to keep you busy.

 

[OMC]

Yes, how does my upbringing compare with yours (if you don't mind sharing your testimony :^)?

I’m old now, and the disabilities are heavy, but I look back and see the thread of God’s goodness running through every place I thought would break me. I grew up in an atheist home, most of my childhood marked by abuse instead of love. When I tried to find help in churches, I was hurt again. By my twenties I was in and out of jails, carrying wounds I didn’t even know how to name. In one of those cells I used to say I “found Jesus,” but now I know the truth: He found me when no one else was looking. I taught myself Scripture, spent years in libraries with nothing but a Bible and questions, and the Word became the first voice that didn’t lie to me or abandon me. I’ve been fighting the systems that crush people like I used to be, not because I’m strong, but because I know what it’s like to be broken and still called by God. And now, even with extreme disabilities, I can say without hesitation: God is good, and He knows — He knows the wounds, the years, the battles, and He has never once let go of me.