Does Regeneration Precede Faith?

[Clare73]

LOL. Says you. But, not scripture.


You are taking 1 Corinthians 2:14 completely out of context. That verse relates specifically to someone not being able to understand the deep things of God or what Paul called the meat or solid food of God's word. It has nothing to do with one's ability to understand their need to repent and put their faith in Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.

< sigh >

If you are not born again, you can neither perceive nor do anything spiritual (1 Co 2:14), including repentance and faith, for it is all foolishness to you.
Spiritually dead people, by definition, can neither perceive nor do anything spiritual, just as physically dead people, by definition, can neither perceive nor do anything physical.

 

[BNR32FAN]

1 John 5:1a reads:

πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστὶν ὁ Χριστός, ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται
("Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God")

A few grammatical observations:

First, ὁ πιστεύων is a present active participle functioning substantively: "the one who is believing." The participle presents the subject, and describes a present, ongoing activity rather than a completed act of faith.

Second, γεγέννηται, the main verb of the clause, is a perfect passive indicative: "has been begotten" or "has been born [of God]." The perfect tense is more than just a "past" tense. Its aspectual function specifically points to a completed action in the past whose effects continue into the present.

When the two forms are set in relation to each other, especially with the present participle functioning substantively -- that is, as the subject of the main verb -- the natural sense is that the person who now believes does so as one who has already been born of God. The grammar, therefore, suggests a logical ordering in which the new birth precedes the act of believing.

This does not, of course, deny the simultaneous experience of these realities in human perception, but grammatically the text places regeneration as the root (the logical grounds) and believing as its fruit.

Lol I’m not sure why you went thru the trouble of the grammatical use of each Greek word there when it’s plainly written in English the same way. But what about Luke 8:13?

“Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭8‬:‭13‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Is this describing people who were regenerated or not?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Thanks for your thoughts, but I still do not see any interaction with the argument of the OP. This thread concerns a grammatical point about 1 John 5:1.

You describe a "lesser faith" versus "saving faith," but can you show from the grammar or context of 1 John 5:1 that it supports such a distinction?

My point concerns the present participle ὁ πιστεύων and the perfect γεγέννηται. The one who is presently believing has already been born of God. That's what the grammar of the text says. Do you object to this?

For what purpose?

 

[bling]

If they are spiritually dead, they can do nothing spiritual.

Correct, but doing something for selfish motivation is sinful and not Spiritual.

 

[BNR32FAN]

If they are spiritually dead, they can do nothing spiritual.

Oh you mean like the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 3. The same Corinthians believers that Paul was addressing in chapter 2?

 

[d taylor]

That directly contradicts what verse 37 says: "All that the Father gives me will come to me." The giving precedes the coming.


That's exactly what it says, almost verbatim...

What do you understand "coming" to mean?


Can you please interact with post #35? Particularly the middle and latter portions on John 6:44, 45.

-

​

God draws, The Holy Spirit teaches (Jesus is The Messiah) and people respond by either believing in Jesus for Eternal Life or they do not believe

Nope God has foreknowledge so God know who will believe in Jesus and who will not so God. So God has already given the believers He knows will believe in Jesus, to Jesus.

That has noting to do with God electing a specific amount of people to Eternal Life. There is no verse in The Bible that states God elects people to Eternal Life.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Personal experience cannot adjudicate between competing exegetical claims. Scripture must govern experience, not the reverse. You've offered testimony, not argument. On what grounds do you "suspect" grammatical bias? If you're going to raise accusations without engaging the reasoning, the suspicion itself suggests bias.

Your exegetical claims, as you call them, twist the truth into a pretzel. It doesn't matter how expertly you explain it, there is no way to change the truth that God forgives sins and gives spiritual life to those who believe. It's not the other way around.

Furthermore, my point about perception wasn't to adjudicate anything. It was simply pushing back against your claims that the Scriptures which speak of things in the way that we experience them somehow makes those Scriptures less important than the Scriptures you think point to a higher level of truth.

The question must be asked. Why would anyone want to make the Scriptures say that trusting in Christ does not lead to salvation/spiritual birth/forgiveness (which, yes, they happen all at the same time, coincident with Jesus coming to live in our hearts)? The only answer I can imagine is that it is needed to support Reformed theology - bolstering the concept that spiritually dead people can't believe.

 

[tdidymas]

The free will “acceptance of God’s charity”, is seen as a purely selfish act on the sinner’s part and thus a sin, but the unregenerate sinner is always sinning. Everyone will humble so humility is not a spiritual activity:

Luke 14:11 For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted

No, not everyone humbles himself, this is the why of Luke 14:11.

Humbly accepting undeserved charity as charity for selfish reasons is not a righteous choice, since it is a selfish choice, but it does allow God to shower the person with gifts.

If a person accepts the gospel as charity, it means they understand that God wants to reconcile with them, which is a measure of faith in Christ, since it is the gospel. I suppose that Hagar and Ishmael accepted charity from God because they were desperate enough, not because they had a "saving faith." So I do accept your idea that unregenerate people can accept charity, but the fact is, they have to be desperate enough, otherwise they will proudly decline.

But we aren't talking about mere acceptance of charity by natural order. The subject matter is regeneration preceding faith in Christ. This is an apples/oranges distinction. Desperation to accept charity in the natural sense can lead one to a spiritual wisdom to accept Christ, but since the latter is a spiritual matter, it requires God's supernatural dealings. A person must first see himself spiritually bankrupt before looking to Christ for help. Only those people who God reveals the truth to are able to exercise hope in Christ, after seeing their spiritual bankruptcy. Therefore, properly reading 1 Jn. 5:1, Eph. 2:5, 1 Cor. 2:14 and other places shows us that if a person comes to real faith in Christ, they have already been regenerated.

So it is not correct hermeneutic to claim that just because a person can naturally accept charity, therefore you can conclude that a person can naturally believe in Christ. But if you agree that faith comes after regeneration, then what is your point about this natural humility?

Again, being willing to humbly selfishly accept pure undeserved charity as charity is not something others would see as being honorable, glorious and exceptional sine the lowliest mature adult on earth go do that. What makes selfishly accepting pure undeserved charity “worthy” of anything?

Paul is not saying the unbeliever cannot make a sinful selfish choice.

I don't get your point in this. If a person can naturally accept charity, how does that relate to faith after regeneration? Things that happen in the world and things that people do can point to a spiritual truth, if one looks for it. But I don't see that your argument makes a valid point contrary to the OP.

Mark 2:16 And when the scribes and Pharisees saw Him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, they said to His disciples, “How is it that He eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?” 17 When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

The Spiritual Jew uses lots of good verses.

Cults also use lots of good verses, but it doesn't mean they are righteous before God. I don't see a clear answer to my question. But I'll explain v. 17 to you, since you seem vague on it: Jesus was accommodating the Pharisees by saying "I did not come to call the righteous..." because they thought they were righteous, not because they actually were. Jesus was calling those who knew they were sinners (and actually were).

It is obvious to me from scripture, but what is your answer to: What logical good reason does God use for those He regenerates and those He does not regenerate?

Ok, finally I think this is the crux of the problem, the real issue. Why does God save some and not others? Is this a good paraphrase of your question?

God has no obligation whatsoever to save anyone. According to Eph. 2:1-3, we all came into the world living unworthily and sinfully, and are culpable for the sin we commit. And as the scripture testifies, we will all be judged according to our deeds. Nevertheless, we are not saved by our deeds, good or bad. God's grace is unmerited, which means those of us who are gifted by God did nothing to deserve it. God's mercy toward us is an exception to His justice which He will exercise eventually on everyone else. "God is just, and the justifier of the one having faith in Christ."

Therefore, God intends to exercise His justice on the world. But He has some on whom He had mercy, and called them (us) out of the world. These people will see the ultimate joy of His grace which He has bestowed on us - Eph. 2:7. So then, it was totally and completely in God's mind and in His hand who He chose to regenerate (and continues to choose, since there is a remnant of people who are still coming to Christ). Here is real spiritual humility - to acknowledge that only God has control of me being saved.

I could have been lost with the rest of the world, happily on my way to hell in a hat basket, and would certainly have deserved lake of fire judgment. But God interrupted my self-centered life, and called me out of it, that special calling talked about in Rom. 8:28 in which we are foreknown, predestined, called, justified, and glorified. It's according to God's purpose, not mine.

According to a subjective and self-centered experience, it may look as though we have control of our eternal destiny. People claim "we chose to believe," which is a false idea. We choose to believe in Christ because we already believed. No one can choose to believe something they don't believe in. No one does that. We choose to submit to God and become a follower of Christ because we have been convicted by the Spirit of the truth of the gospel. And being convicted, we already know it to be true, which means we believe it. There is no unbelieving it. There may be resistance because of sin or confusion, but when the Spirit convicts, He is persistent. Such drawing is the powerful hand of God. How can God's mighty hand be resisted by our feeble foolish wills? God makes a way.

From a strictly human perspective, it looks as though you are choosing, and God is passively waiting for you to choose rightly, so that He can respond with spiritual action. But it only looks that way, because it's traditionally taught. Note the words of the song, "see on the portals, He's waiting and watching, calling 'oh, sinner, come home'." But in the spiritual realm, God is at work - revealing Himself, illuminating the truth, giving His Spirit to join with you - Eph. 2:5. Spiritual wisdom is needed to favorably respond to the gospel heard, and only God can grant that.

So the logical reason why God saves some is that He has mercy, and love, toward those He chose to save. Why then doesn't He save everyone alike? Is God obligated to that? Obviously not. How can God reveal His grace to those He saves, unless there is a contrast of the justice He exercises on those He does not choose to save? How can we gratefully appreciate God's love for us, if He loves everyone the same? God electing some out of the world induces a greater appreciation of His gracious action, and should induce greater worship of the God who saves.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That directly contradicts what verse 37 says: "All that the Father gives me will come to me." The giving precedes the coming.


That's exactly what it says, almost verbatim...

What do you understand "coming" to mean?


Can you please interact with post #35? Particularly the middle and latter portions on John 6:44, 45.

What about John 12:32? According to what Jesus said here, the way a person is drawn to Him changed after His crucifixion.

“And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.””
‭‭John‬ ‭12‬:‭32‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

I do not engage in most of your exegetical comments, since for the most part I agree with them. Mostly we are talking about two very different things in the salvation process, you are talking about after regeneration and I am talking about before regeneration (having the indwelling Holy Spirit). I am talking about what the person needs to do which is nothing honorable, righteous, holy, worthy or spiritual, to be regenerated.

You repeatedly frame your argument as a discussion of "what a person can do before regeneration," but you have not demonstrated this from Scripture. Your claims about pre-regenerate "acts" or "choices" are speculative. They are not exegetically grounded. Scripture consistently portrays unregenerate humanity as morally and spiritually incapable of submitting to God in any fashion. Any true reception of God's offer requires this moral and spiritual capability, which the unregenerate lack. Mere acts of self-interest, self-preservation, or worldly compliance do not qualify as responding to God in the biblical sense.

I'm still unclear on the purpose of this speculation to begin with. Are you suggesting that a sinful act of self-interest somehow elicits God's grace? What would this act be, concretely? Can you describe what a person actually does that moves God to respond with regeneration?

You also claim to agree with most of my exegetical comments, but this cannot be the case. If you truly accepted that the spiritually dead are incapable of acknowledging God, then your category of pre-regenerate acts could not exist. Your framework depends entirely on a bifurcation of human response ("before regeneration" vs. "after regeneration") for which you have provided no textual support.

It is therefore not a matter of philosophical plausibility or appealing to worldly examples like solders surrendering or "whosoever" statements. The burden is on you to show, from Scripture, that pre-regenerate acts of spiritual significance exist. Until you provide that, the conversation remains purely speculative.

You have not told me any difference between people prior to be regeneration or not, so did God arbitrarily choose some over others for no known logical reason?

Scripture never presents God's choice as dependent on anything humans do prior to regeneration. The difference lies not in people themselves but in God's sovereign initiative to effectually draw some (John 6:37, 44). If regeneration depended on a pre-regenerate difference in men, salvation would be meritorious.

You say: “Scripture nowhere presents God as "doing all He can"…”. Yet God allowed His only son to be torture, humiliated and totally unjustly murdered on the cross, to help us, so what more is possible? What is God doing which does not help willing individuals in fulfilling their objective and what more could be done?

What are you asking here? The cross achieves the salvation of those whom God sovereignly draws. It does not depend on a pre-regenerate human "willingness" to cooperate.

You say: “…nor does it depict unregenerate sinners as capable of "selfishly accepting" divine grace.” Yet, there are lots of example like every time “Whosoever” is used we see the exercising of free will. How can man fulfill his earthly objective without free will?

"Whosoever" simply identifies "those who" do something (e.g., John 3:16, πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων, "all who believe"). It signals choice, not autonomous free will in the salvific sense. The issue is the nature of the choice: pre-regeneration, it is governed by a worldly, God-hostile disposition; post-regeneration, it is governed by a renewed, Spirit-enabled disposition.

What is your understanding of man's earthly objective?

I fully agree with what you said here: “The "spiritually dead" (νεκροὺς, Eph. 2:1) are not wounded seekers; they are morally incapable of submission to God (Rom. 8:7-8; 1 Cor. 2:14).” But what things can a spiritual dead person do?

Sin.

You say: “To "accept" anything offered by God would already require acknowledgement and delight in Him as God”, lots of soldiers have surrendered to the enemy knowing very little “truth” about their enemy.

A morally neutral act at self-preservation is in no way analogous to accepting God's offer, and it certainly doesn't motivate Him to respond favorably.

“the father's initiative”, is not shown in the son coming to his senses. If the father had sent servants after the son you could say: it was the father’s initiative.

The son's realization ("coming to himself") does not operate apart from the father's prior provision and invitation. The text's focus is narrative, not a prescriptive model of pre-regenerate human initiative. I'm finished discussing the parable. If you can't provide a single didactic text that illustrates the view you're wanting to argue, there's no point to this discussion.

You said: “A "selfish acceptance" of divine charity is a contradiction in terms.” But how is that any different from a soldier selfishly willingly to accept pure undeserved charity from an enemy he still hates?

The difference is divine charity is of an entirely different order than human charity.

When a soldier "accepts" a gift from an enemy, the gift is external, and the soldier remains an autonomous agent acting on self-interest. Divine grace, however, is the impartation of spiritual life itself. It is internal and transformative, not external and merely transactional. To receive what God offers is necessarily to receive God Himself. There is no genuine "acceptance" apart from acknowledging and delighting in Him as God. A so-called "selfish" acceptance of divine grace is therefore not real acceptance at all. If someone seeks only relief from judgment or some external benefit while rejecting God Himself, what they are "accepting" is a mere caricature of God's gift, not actual acceptance of what's offered. Why would God respond favorably to that by regenerating them (if regeneration were contingent on something man does)? Divine grace, in its salvific sense, is precisely the offering of God's own presence and life, not a detached favor. He Himself is the gift, which makes the notion of self-interested reception incoherent.

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

Lol I’m not sure why you went thru the trouble of the grammatical use of each Greek word there when it’s plainly written in English the same way. But what about Luke 8:13?

“Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭8‬:‭13‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Is this describing people who were regenerated or not?

"Grammatical use of each Greek word" - I only looked at the relationship between two verbs.

English translations naturally flatten the nuances of Greek, especially aspect and tense, which convey subtleties of action and logical sequence more precisely than English. So grammatical precision isn't pedantry. What the NASB renders as "has been born of God" may read fine in English, but it does not automatically communicate the logical sequencing that's there in the Greek. This is even more true of older translations that rendered the phrase "is born," which utilized an older English way of implying a resultant state. Reading the English alone, one would not immediately discern that belief is presented as the fruit of being born again. "Everyone who believes has been born of God" could, in English, just as easily read as "those who believe have, consequently, been born again." But in the Greek, it is clear that the reverse is true.

No, Luke 8:13 doesn't describe regenerate people. They hear and initially "receive the word with joy," but fall away under temptation. "Have no firm root" signals the absence of an internal, Spirit-wrought transformation; no new birth has occurred. Their reception was superficial and self-generated. Scripture defines regeneration as producing an enduring faith.

 

[bling]

No, not everyone humbles himself, this is the why of Luke 14:11.

Jesus defines humility in the context of the whole parable:

Luke 14: 7 When he noticed how the guests picked the places of honor at the table, he told them this parable: 8 “When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. 9 If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this person your seat.’ Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. 10 But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests. 11 For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

Humility is not like some pill you swallow, but is an emotion found within the individual. There is nothing wrong with felling humble, but it is also not a gift given only to the elect, since the parable is talking about a proud person becoming humble without going through a rebirth.

If a person accepts the gospel as charity, it means they understand that God wants to reconcile with them, which is a measure of faith in Christ, since it is the gospel. I suppose that Hagar and Ishmael accepted charity from God because they were desperate enough, not because they had a "saving faith." So I do accept your idea that unregenerate people can accept charity, but the fact is, they have to be desperate enough, otherwise they will proudly decline.

Stop! I am not talking about the sinner, “accepting the gospel”/salvation, but accepting charity as charity.

I do not know if Hagar and Ishmael accepted God’s charity as charity, since they could feel deserving of help, but I also do not know if Hagar and Ishmael did not become part of the elect.

But we aren't talking about mere acceptance of charity by natural order. The subject matter is regeneration preceding faith in Christ. This is an apples/oranges distinction. Desperation to accept charity in the natural sense can lead one to a spiritual wisdom to accept Christ, but since the latter is a spiritual matter, it requires God's supernatural dealings. A person must first see himself spiritually bankrupt before looking to Christ for help. Only those people who God reveals the truth to are able to exercise hope in Christ, after seeing their spiritual bankruptcy. Therefore, properly reading 1 Jn. 5:1, Eph. 2:5, 1 Cor. 2:14 and other places shows us that if a person comes to real faith in Christ, they have already been regenerated.

I love the way people say: “Only those people who God reveals the truth to are able to exercise hope in Christ” and give no Biblical reason for God to not reveal the truth to everyone. Do you have the Biblical reason?

The Biblical reason I see for God to reveal the gift of truth to some and not others is because “others” are unwilling to humbly accept any and all God’s gifts as pure undeserved charity.

It is not a one-sided transaction, since the receiver of God’s gifts has to accept those gifts as charity to complete the transaction (Matt. 18).

So it is not correct hermeneutic to claim that just because a person can naturally accept charity, therefore you can conclude that a person can naturally believe in Christ. But if you agree that faith comes after regeneration, then what is your point about this natural humility?

Again, I did not say or claim: “…a person can naturally accept charity, therefore you can conclude that a person can naturally believe in Christ”.

The issue is: “What Biblically logically determines who is “regenerated”?”

Look in scripture to find the value and importance of being humble.

I don't get your point in this. If a person can naturally accept charity, how does that relate to faith after regeneration? Things that happen in the world and things that people do can point to a spiritual truth, if one looks for it. But I don't see that your argument makes a valid point contrary to the OP.

I’m pointing to the obtaining of the regeneration, which than produces faith and faithfulness. There is a natural type of free will faith and hope which needs to generate a willingness to be humble to the point of accepting God Love/charity as charity. You get nothing if you are unwilling to even selfishly accept pure undeserved charity as charity.

Cults also use lots of good verses, but it doesn't mean they are righteous before God. I don't see a clear answer to my question. But I'll explain v. 17 to you, since you seem vague on it: Jesus was accommodating the Pharisees by saying "I did not come to call the righteous..." because they thought they were righteous, not because they actually were. Jesus was calling those who knew they were sinners (and actually were).

Jesus describes Himself as a physician healing the sick (sinners), but there is nothing about them “knowing” they were sick (sinners) and Jesus was going only to those who knew they were sinners.

Ok, finally I think this is the crux of the problem, the real issue. Why does God save some and not others? Is this a good paraphrase of your question?

God has no obligation whatsoever to save anyone. According to Eph. 2:1-3, we all came into the world living unworthily and sinfully, and are culpable for the sin we commit. And as the scripture testifies, we will all be judged according to our deeds. Nevertheless, we are not saved by our deeds, good or bad. God's grace is unmerited, which means those of us who are gifted by God did nothing to deserve it. God's mercy toward us is an exception to His justice which He will exercise eventually on everyone else. "God is just, and the justifier of the one having faith in Christ."

Therefore, God intends to exercise His justice on the world. But He has some on whom He had mercy, and called them (us) out of the world. These people will see the ultimate joy of His grace which He has bestowed on us - Eph. 2:7. So then, it was totally and completely in God's mind and in His hand who He chose to regenerate (and continues to choose, since there is a remnant of people who are still coming to Christ). Here is real spiritual humility - to acknowledge that only God has control of me being saved.

I could have been lost with the rest of the world, happily on my way to hell in a hat basket, and would certainly have deserved lake of fire judgment. But God interrupted my self-centered life, and called me out of it, that special calling talked about in Rom. 8:28 in which we are foreknown, predestined, called, justified, and glorified. It's according to God's purpose, not mine.

According to a subjective and self-centered experience, it may look as though we have control of our eternal destiny. People claim "we chose to believe," which is a false idea. We choose to believe in Christ because we already believed. No one can choose to believe something they don't believe in. No one does that. We choose to submit to God and become a follower of Christ because we have been convicted by the Spirit of the truth of the gospel. And being convicted, we already know it to be true, which means we believe it. There is no unbelieving it. There may be resistance because of sin or confusion, but when the Spirit convicts, He is persistent. Such drawing is the powerful hand of God. How can God's mighty hand be resisted by our feeble foolish wills? God makes a way.

From a strictly human perspective, it looks as though you are choosing, and God is passively waiting for you to choose rightly, so that He can respond with spiritual action. But it only looks that way, because it's traditionally taught. Note the words of the song, "see on the portals, He's waiting and watching, calling 'oh, sinner, come home'." But in the spiritual realm, God is at work - revealing Himself, illuminating the truth, giving His Spirit to join with you - Eph. 2:5. Spiritual wisdom is needed to favorably respond to the gospel heard, and only God can grant that.

So the logical reason why God saves some is that He has mercy, and love, toward those He chose to save. Why then doesn't He save everyone alike? Is God obligated to that? Obviously not. How can God reveal His grace to those He saves, unless there is a contrast of the justice He exercises on those He does not choose to save? How can we gratefully appreciate God's love for us, if He loves everyone the same? God electing some out of the world induces a greater appreciation of His gracious action, and should induce greater worship of the God who saves.

Thank you for typing out your thoughts on the matter, but please help me with a few questions your word generated:

• Would a rescuer going into a burning building to save a few people when he could just as easily and safely save everyone be as glorious as a rescuer who saves everyone?
• Would God show greater Love by saving everyone over saving just a few?
• By your saying “if God loves everyone the same”, suggesting God does not “Love” everyone the same, but are we not called upon to Love everyone the same which means we are told to have a greater “Love” than God?
• How does God choose who He will and will not “Love”, since we are all the same?
• Could God Loves everyone, yet some go to hell, be the result of the some refusing to humbly accept His Love/Charity?
• If a person refuses God’s Love even though the person really desperately needs God’s Love and does not want to Love or be around Love, be happy in heaven?
• I am saying God has done all He can to help the hell bound person to humbly accept His charity as charity, so there comes a point at which there is nothing more God can do for that person to accept His Love. That refuser of Love takes on the lesser objective of helping others to accept God’s Love, partly by going to hell. God still Loves them, so how do you explain it?
• You asked: How can God reveal His grace to those He saves, unless there is a contrast of the justice He exercises on those He does not choose to save? Wow! The “contrast” is between how I was before being saved and after I am saved, which is our witness and what Paul taught us to use. I do not know who is/will be saved and not saved, but I do know about myself.
• How do you feel about the lost (What keeps you from having survivor remorse?)? I can see it as being their free will choice to not accept charity and thus be very unhappy if they went to heaven where there is only Godly type Love, but what is your logical explanation?

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

-

​

God draws, The Holy Spirit teaches (Jesus is The Messiah) and people respond by either believing in Jesus for Eternal Life or they do not believe

Nope God has foreknowledge so God know who will believe in Jesus and who will not so God. So God has already given the believers He knows will believe in Jesus, to Jesus.

That has noting to do with God electing a specific amount of people to Eternal Life. There is no verse in The Bible that states God elects people to Eternal Life.

Bare assertions offer me nothing to respond to, especially one's I've already argued against. Please interact with my comments in post #35 if you wish to continue.

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

Your exegetical claims, as you call them, twist the truth into a pretzel. It doesn't matter how expertly you explain it, there is no way to change the truth that God forgives sins and gives spiritual life to those who believe. It's not the other way around.

It's not the other way around, as I demonstrate in the OP. Now, if you'd like to challenge the argument that's been provided, by going to Scripture and showing the contrary to be true, I'll gladly engage with you.

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

What about John 12:32? According to what Jesus said here, the way a person is drawn to Him changed after His crucifixion.

“And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.””
‭‭John‬ ‭12‬:‭32‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

What do you mean by "the way a person is drawn to Him changed"? I recently commented on John 12:32 in another thread. I'll reproduce those comments below:

John 12:32 occurs within the context of Jesus responding to the report that "some Greeks" desired to see Him (v. 20). The arrival of Gentiles signals that the redemptive focus is widening beyond Israel. Jesus interprets this event as the indication that His "hour" has come: the hour of His glorification through death (v. 23). Thus, when He says He will be "lifted up," He refers to His crucifixion (v. 33).​

​

So when he says πάντας ἑλκύσω ("I will draw all people"), the phrase must be read in light of the preceding Gentile reference and the Johannine theme of universal scope of the gospel, not universal salvation (or the attempt at such). In other words, "all" here does not mean "every individual without exception," but "all kinds of people (Jew and Gentile alike) without distinction." The arrival of Greeks prompts Jesus to declare that His crucifixion will effect a drawing not limited to Jews. The verse, therefore, celebrates the inclusiveness of the atonement's scope (its sufficiency), not the universality of its effect (its efficiency).​

​

In short, the "drawing" of John 12:32 refers to the world-wide proclamation of the gospel, through which all nations are summoned to faith. It is not a statement on the wooing effects of God's work on the hearts of individuals. The text is missional, not soteriological. Christ's cross will be the magnet of gospel appeal to every tribe and tongue.​

I also went on to say this regarding John 6:44:

In contrast, John 6:44 depicts a different kind of drawing. There, Jesus addresses unbelieving Jews who are grumbling over His claim to be the bread from heaven (vv. 41-43). He rebukes them, essentially telling them to knock it off (μὴ γογγύζετε), as if to declare that it is pointless for them to complain. Why? Why not just address their concerns and try to reason with them? He answers: "No one can (οὐδεὶς δύναται) come to me unless drawn," the implication being that they hadn't been, hence the reason for their persistent unbelief. The problem is not that they haven't been invited, but that they cannot believe. The issue is moral and spiritual inability, not ethnic scope.​

​

Same verb as in John 12:32, but its sense differs. In John 6, the "drawing" is effectual; it infallibly results in saving faith. Grammatically, the object of "draws him" (ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν) is the same as the object of "I will raise him" (ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν), both referring back to οὐδεὶς. Thus, while the text explicitly says that the one who is drawn is enabled to come, the grammar also entails that the one who is drawn is the one who comes, believes, and is raised. In other words, the text assumes no distinction between "enabled to come" and "those who do come." It presents man in two categories: those who are unable to come, and those who, being enabled, do so. (More on the grammatical argument for this below.)​

​

So the Father's drawing in John 6:44 is not the external call of gospel proclamation (as in John 12:32), but the internal, regenerative work of grace whereby the sinner's will is made willing (cf. v. 65, which restates v. 44 but replaces the verb with that of v. 37).​

​

...​

​

The main clause, οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με ("no one is able to come to me"), asserts total inability. The verb δύναται ("is able") makes ability, not willingness, the issue. The conditional clause, ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ... ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν ("unless the Father... draws him"), introduces the single remedy for this inability: divine initiative. The construction is a present general third-class conditional, meaning Jesus is appealing to a general or axiomatic truth about humanity: mankind as a whole is naturally incapable of coming to Christ, apart from the Father's drawing.​

​

The final clause, κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ("and I will raise him up on the last day"), is not part of the condition, but its logical consequence. Grammatically, the αὐτὸν ("him") in both ἑλκύσῃ ("draws") and ἀναστήσω ("will raise") refers to the same person. Thus, the one drawn is the one raised. This is easily seen if restating the logic of the verse contrapositively:​

​

"If he is able to come, then the Father [has drawn] him, and I will raise him up."​

​

Who is the one raised? The one enabled to come; the one drawn by the Father. We could say, theologically, that the one raised is the one who actually comes. But what the logic of John 6:44 is declaring is that there isn't a distinction. Jesus assumes no difference between those enabled to come, and those who actually do so. The drawing is effectual -- not in making people into "automatons," but in changing the disposition of their hearts such that the sin they once loved they now hate, and the God they once opposed (Rom. 8:7-8) they are now naturally inclined toward. They will as their heart desires, and their heart desires Christ.​

​

This aligns with verse 37, which says, "all that the Father gives me will come to me." Interestingly, verse 65 restates verse 44, but replaces the verb with that of verse 37. That interchange of ἑλκύω ("draw") and δίδωμι ("give") indicates a paradigmatic relationship between the two verbs within parallel syntagmatic contexts, suggesting that the Father's drawing and giving are conceptually identical acts:​

​

"All that the Father gives/draws to me will come to me."​

"No one can come to me unless the Father draws/gives them to me (the one drawn/given will be raised up on the last day)."​

 

[d taylor]

Bare assertions offer me nothing to respond to, especially one's I've already argued against. Please interact with my comments in post #35 if you wish to continue.

-
​

I really do not, i actually gave this absurd theology more time than i intended. I mean if someone believes they are born again before they believe in Jesus for Eternal Life, there is no way to actually have a discussion.

A person is born again before they believe in Jesus. So what is the purpose for a born again person believing in Jesus, so they can be born again. Right that really makes Biblical sense.

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

-
​

I really do not, i actually gave this absurd theology more time than i intended. I mean if someone believes they are born again before they believe in Jesus for Eternal Life, there is no way to actually have a discussion.

A person is born again before they believe in Jesus. So what is the purpose for a born again person believing in Jesus, so they can be born again. Right that really makes Biblical sense.

So you do not believe what John wrote? "Everyone who [presently] believes (ὁ πιστεύων) that Jesus is the Christ has [previously] been born (γεγέννηται) of God." - 1 John 5:1

It is telling that you won't engage with the text in your replies.

 

[tdidymas]

Jesus defines humility in the context of the whole parable:

Luke 14: 7 When he noticed how the guests picked the places of honor at the table, he told them this parable: 8 “When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. 9 If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this person your seat.’ Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. 10 But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests. 11 For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

Humility is not like some pill you swallow, but is an emotion found within the individual. There is nothing wrong with felling humble, but it is also not a gift given only to the elect, since the parable is talking about a proud person becoming humble without going through a rebirth.

Who said anything about a pill? Humility is not an "emotion" as you claim, but is a spiritual understanding of one's own condition. "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." When you talk about "emotions" you are talking about living according to the flesh - that is, acting out what the body is telling you to do, whether good or bad - Rom. 8:13.

I love the way people say: “Only those people who God reveals the truth to are able to exercise hope in Christ” and give no Biblical reason for God to not reveal the truth to everyone. Do you have the Biblical reason?

2 Cor. 4:3-4 "But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."
1 Cor. 2:14 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

I have talked about scripture like this many times, but it seems like you're not listening, or completely disregarding it. The true condition of man's soul is that he is imprisoned in the blindness and deafness of spiritual death, which the devil (the "serpent") has captured them. They are in bondage. They think they are ok and don't need a savior, because they think they are righteous enough to be accepted by God (if they even believe He exists). The gospel first tells them the bad news that they are headed for destruction - "wide the gate and broad the way that leads to destruction, and many there be that find it."

Whoever remains in their unbelieving state are there by their own devices (they are culpable for their unbelief), even though the devil has blinded them from the truth. So then, it takes God to make someone spiritual, at least enough to make them see how they deserve lake of fire judgment, in addition to having some hope that Jesus can save them from it. This is clearly taught in the cited verses, as well as Eph. 2:1-10.

The Biblical reason I see for God to reveal the gift of truth to some and not others is because “others” are unwilling to humbly accept any and all God’s gifts as pure undeserved charity.

It is not a one-sided transaction, since the receiver of God’s gifts has to accept those gifts as charity to complete the transaction (Matt. 18).

The problem is that you aren't taking what Paul clearly taught into consideration. From the point of view of a man who has no understanding of how God works, it appears that they "have to accept the gifts of God as charity to complete the transaction" - you use Mat. 18 as a prooftext. But the fact is, you don't understand that when Jesus said things like, "do this and you will live" (Lk. 10), He is accommodating the unbelieving mind that doesn't understand how God works. Paul taught that the elect are predestined, which means that our placement in God's kingdom was His doing, not ours - 1 Cor. 1:30 "But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption." Therefore, it is a one-sided transaction.

The problem with thinking it's a two-sided transaction is that you have to assume that a person is able to do something (even if it's a "selfish acceptance of pure charity") to cause God to regenerate him. But it doesn't work that way, because God's favor (grace) is unmerited, which means we did nothing at all to cause God's spiritual blessing to be bestowed on us. We were chosen by God only because God chose to love us more than the rest of the world. This is clearly taught in Eph. ch. 1 & 2.

Again, I did not say or claim: “…a person can naturally accept charity, therefore you can conclude that a person can naturally believe in Christ”.

Oh, but it's what you really mean, and you revealed that in your post. Your "claim" (your agenda) is to teach that if an unregenerate person can naturally accept charity, the implication is that it leads to an unregenerate person receiving the ultimate charity, regeneration and eternal life. Your posts are full of this idea. It reeks of Roman Catholic synergism, which teaches that a person merits salvation by cooperating with God. They also disregard verses like 2 Cor. 4:3-4 by assuming that an unregenerate person can understand and obey the gospel, which is contrary to what Paul clearly taught.

The issue is: “What Biblically logically determines who is “regenerated”?”

Look in scripture to find the value and importance of being humble.

I take your question to mean, what CAUSES a person to be regenerated. I answered this question in the last post. Did you read it? This is the question of "why does God save some and not others?" If this is not what you mean, then you need to be clear about it. Ask the question in different words, in a different way. Be more specific about your question. If you are meaning, how can we determine if a person is regenerated, that's a completely different question, answered by a different set of scripture.

Humility does not CAUSE a person to be regenerated. A person who humbles himself before God already has a faith that justifies him. Again, there is a humility based on natural desperation, and a humility based on real faith in God, and the twain shall never meet in the unregenerate soul, but they do meet in the regenerate soul. Titus 3:5 "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit."

The humility that is based solely on natural desperation and has no spiritual component is soon forgotten after the need has been satisfied. The one blinded by the "god of this world" will never acknowledge his need for God - Rom. 3:10-11. Such humility is a temporary hiccup in the typical life of an unbeliever. Certainly God uses natural desperation sometimes to aid in His efforts to regenerate a person, just as He uses natural wisdom and reasoning; but those things cannot, and do not regenerate a person. Regeneration is done according to the election of God alone, taught by Paul in Eph. 1 and elsewhere.

Therefore, don't confuse an after-the-fact experience of regeneration with Paul's teaching of how a person is actually regenerated, thereby transitioning them from unsaved to saved. Paul clearly states in Col. 1:13 "For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son." God did not rescue us BECAUSE we asked, but we asked to be rescued BECAUSE of the convicting power of the Spirit. IOW, we were first regenerated, then we began to realize how desperately we needed Christ's deliverance.

I’m pointing to the obtaining of the regeneration, which than produces faith and faithfulness. There is a natural type of free will faith and hope which needs to generate a willingness to be humble to the point of accepting God Love/charity as charity. You get nothing if you are unwilling to even selfishly accept pure undeserved charity as charity.

This statement reveals a lot about your agenda, as I stated above. You are trying here to give some reason in man why God saves some and not others. But according to the verses I cited, among many others, the reason why God saves some and not others is found only in God's will, not in ours. Our "free will" isn't free spiritually until God frees us from the bondage of the devil's lie. We naturally want to think that we have control of our eternal destiny, because we feel some sense of security in that feeling; but unfortunately it's a false sense of security. Only God has control of our eternal destiny, and this is why we have to completely trust Him (i.e. trust Christ). This is what surrender and submission is all about.

Regeneration is only obtained when God decides to do it. Cooperation with God is after-the-fact. We are exhorted by the apostles to cooperate with God, so that circumstances will go well with us, and that God won't have to chastise us. It's all after-the-fact of regeneration. Gal. 5:16 "I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh" is an exhortation to Christians, not to unbelievers.

Jesus describes Himself as a physician healing the sick (sinners), but there is nothing about them “knowing” they were sick (sinners) and Jesus was going only to those who knew they were sinners.

But if a person doesn't know they are a sinner, they won't seek a savior. This was the problem with the Pharisees and teachers of the law. They were oblivious to the fact that Jer. 17:9 applied to them. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"

Part 2 in the next post.

 

[BNR32FAN]

"Grammatical use of each Greek word" - I only looked at the relationship between two verbs.

English translations naturally flatten the nuances of Greek, especially aspect and tense, which convey subtleties of action and logical sequence more precisely than English. So grammatical precision isn't pedantry. What the NASB renders as "has been born of God" may read fine in English, but it does not automatically communicate the logical sequencing that's there in the Greek. This is even more true of older translations that rendered the phrase "is born," which utilized an older English way of implying a resultant state. Reading the English alone, one would not immediately discern that belief is presented as the fruit of being born again. "Everyone who believes has been born of God" could, in English, just as easily read as "those who believe have, consequently, been born again." But in the Greek, it is clear that the reverse is true.

No, Luke 8:13 doesn't describe regenerate people. They hear and initially "receive the word with joy," but fall away under temptation. "Have no firm root" signals the absence of an internal, Spirit-wrought transformation; no new birth has occurred. Their reception was superficial and self-generated. Scripture defines regeneration as producing an enduring faith.

I agree that they were not born again according to the parallel passages saying that they spring up right away then wither away, but the fact still remains that they were able to believe. There’s nothing about the Greek translation that implies a sequence of events in 1 John 5:1. Does John 3:18 show a sequence of events?

“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”
‭‭John‬ ‭3‬:‭18‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

In John 3:18 the term “he who does not believe” isn’t actually meant in the present tense even though it’s worded that way in the Greek because every believer was once an unbeliever and will not come into judgment. The term is actually referring to their end result, not their current status. We can infer this from the following verses.

“This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.””
‭‭John‬ ‭3‬:‭19‬-‭21‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

By this we can see that the term “he who does not believe” isn’t necessarily following judgement, their judgement is actually the result of their unbelief. So no perfect tense and present participle doesn’t always infer a sequence of events, it represents a correlation of events which is exactly what is taking place in 1 John 5:1.

Here are a few more examples that contradict your claim that regeneration precedes faith.

“and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.””
‭‭Acts‬ ‭16‬:‭30‬-‭31‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

The jailer wasn’t saved before he believed, he had to believe in order to be saved.

“in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭3‬:‭14‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

We receive the promise of the Holy Spirit through faith which means faith precedes the promise.

“that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭10‬:‭9‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.””
‭‭Romans‬ ‭10‬:‭13‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Again salvation comes after faith.

What this indicates is that Greek tense does not always indicate sequence, context indicates sequence.

 

[BNR32FAN]

What do you mean by "the way a person is drawn to Him changed"? I recently commented on John 12:32 in another thread. I'll reproduce those comments below:

John 12:32 occurs within the context of Jesus responding to the report that "some Greeks" desired to see Him (v. 20). The arrival of Gentiles signals that the redemptive focus is widening beyond Israel. Jesus interprets this event as the indication that His "hour" has come: the hour of His glorification through death (v. 23). Thus, when He says He will be "lifted up," He refers to His crucifixion (v. 33).​

​

So when he says πάντας ἑλκύσω ("I will draw all people"), the phrase must be read in light of the preceding Gentile reference and the Johannine theme of universal scope of the gospel, not universal salvation (or the attempt at such). In other words, "all" here does not mean "every individual without exception," but "all kinds of people (Jew and Gentile alike) without distinction." The arrival of Greeks prompts Jesus to declare that His crucifixion will effect a drawing not limited to Jews. The verse, therefore, celebrates the inclusiveness of the atonement's scope (its sufficiency), not the universality of its effect (its efficiency).​

​

In short, the "drawing" of John 12:32 refers to the world-wide proclamation of the gospel, through which all nations are summoned to faith. It is not a statement on the wooing effects of God's work on the hearts of individuals. The text is missional, not soteriological. Christ's cross will be the magnet of gospel appeal to every tribe and tongue.​

I also went on to say this regarding John 6:44:

In contrast, John 6:44 depicts a different kind of drawing. There, Jesus addresses unbelieving Jews who are grumbling over His claim to be the bread from heaven (vv. 41-43). He rebukes them, essentially telling them to knock it off (μὴ γογγύζετε), as if to declare that it is pointless for them to complain. Why? Why not just address their concerns and try to reason with them? He answers: "No one can (οὐδεὶς δύναται) come to me unless drawn," the implication being that they hadn't been, hence the reason for their persistent unbelief. The problem is not that they haven't been invited, but that they cannot believe. The issue is moral and spiritual inability, not ethnic scope.​

​

Same verb as in John 12:32, but its sense differs. In John 6, the "drawing" is effectual; it infallibly results in saving faith. Grammatically, the object of "draws him" (ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν) is the same as the object of "I will raise him" (ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν), both referring back to οὐδεὶς. Thus, while the text explicitly says that the one who is drawn is enabled to come, the grammar also entails that the one who is drawn is the one who comes, believes, and is raised. In other words, the text assumes no distinction between "enabled to come" and "those who do come." It presents man in two categories: those who are unable to come, and those who, being enabled, do so. (More on the grammatical argument for this below.)​

​

So the Father's drawing in John 6:44 is not the external call of gospel proclamation (as in John 12:32), but the internal, regenerative work of grace whereby the sinner's will is made willing (cf. v. 65, which restates v. 44 but replaces the verb with that of v. 37).​

​

...​

​

The main clause, οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με ("no one is able to come to me"), asserts total inability. The verb δύναται ("is able") makes ability, not willingness, the issue. The conditional clause, ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ... ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν ("unless the Father... draws him"), introduces the single remedy for this inability: divine initiative. The construction is a present general third-class conditional, meaning Jesus is appealing to a general or axiomatic truth about humanity: mankind as a whole is naturally incapable of coming to Christ, apart from the Father's drawing.​

​

The final clause, κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ("and I will raise him up on the last day"), is not part of the condition, but its logical consequence. Grammatically, the αὐτὸν ("him") in both ἑλκύσῃ ("draws") and ἀναστήσω ("will raise") refers to the same person. Thus, the one drawn is the one raised. This is easily seen if restating the logic of the verse contrapositively:​

​

"If he is able to come, then the Father [has drawn] him, and I will raise him up."​

​

Who is the one raised? The one enabled to come; the one drawn by the Father. We could say, theologically, that the one raised is the one who actually comes. But what the logic of John 6:44 is declaring is that there isn't a distinction. Jesus assumes no difference between those enabled to come, and those who actually do so. The drawing is effectual -- not in making people into "automatons," but in changing the disposition of their hearts such that the sin they once loved they now hate, and the God they once opposed (Rom. 8:7-8) they are now naturally inclined toward. They will as their heart desires, and their heart desires Christ.​

​

This aligns with verse 37, which says, "all that the Father gives me will come to me." Interestingly, verse 65 restates verse 44, but replaces the verb with that of verse 37. That interchange of ἑλκύω ("draw") and δίδωμι ("give") indicates a paradigmatic relationship between the two verbs within parallel syntagmatic contexts, suggesting that the Father's drawing and giving are conceptually identical acts:​

​

"All that the Father gives/draws to me will come to me."​

"No one can come to me unless the Father draws/gives them to me (the one drawn/given will be raised up on the last day)."​

John 12:20 doesn’t indicate that Jesus was not referring to all men. What do you do with Ezekiel 33:11 in this context?

“Say to them, ‘As I live!’ declares the Lord God, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?’”
‭‭Ezekiel‬ ‭33‬:‭11‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

This is a parallel passage to 2 Peter 3:9

“The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.”
‭‭2 Peter‬ ‭3‬:‭9‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Romans 2:4-5 also supports this context.

“Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭2‬:‭4‬-‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

And Romans 9:22

“What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭9‬:‭22‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

The scriptures are clear that God does in fact desire for the wicked to repent and believe and His kindness and patience is leading them to repentance through His word.