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 am being metaphorical by saying: “humility is not a pill you swallow.” It is not one thing. Since prideful people can be made humble, express the characteristic of humility, and still be hell bound means it is not divinely spiritual, since hell bound people are not divinely spiritual.
Humility is not defined as something just spiritual and although it includes emotions it is much more than just an emotion and might be said to be a characteristic of the person. Everyone might have the characteristic of humility, but at a wide range of degrees.
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.
I’m not sure what you are trying to get across with Eph. 2:8
People use Eph 2:8 “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” to show “faith” is a gift and forget about verse 9 which says: “not by works, so that no one can boast.” The gift cannot be grammatical correct and be “faith”, but you do not have to know Greek, just look at verse 9. If “faith” were the gift then Paul is telling us faith cannot be worked for and earned which is not logical or discussed as even an option anywhere else. How would people go about working to obtain faith anyway (it is to quit working, trying to do it yourself and start trusting). The “gift” in Eph. 2:8 is the whole salvation process which Paul talks about in other places, showing people trying to earn salvation.
I can look up genders and dust off my Greek New Testament, but here is what Barnes and Robertson have to say and they do an honest job as far as I can tell:
And that not of yourselves - That is, salvation does not proceed from yourselves. The word rendered "that" - ͂ touto - is in the neuter gender, and the word "faith" - ́ pistis - is in the feminine. The word "that," therefore, does not refer particularly to faith, as being the gift of God, but to "the salvation by grace" of which he had been speaking. This is the interpretation of the passage which is the most obvious, and which is now generally conceded to be the true one; see Bloomfield. Many critics, however, as Doddridge, Beza, Piscator, and Chrysostom, maintain that the word "that" ( ͂ touto ) refers to "faith" ( ́ pistis ); and Doddridge maintains that such a use is common in the New Testament. As a matter of grammar this opinion is certainly doubtful, if not untenable; but as a matter of theology it is a question of very little importance.
Robertson, on the topic of pronouns, wrote:
9. Gender and Number of outos. ... In general, like other adjectives, outos agrees with its substantive in gender and number, whether predicate or attributive. ... In Eph. 2:8 , ..., there is no reference to pisteos in touto, but rather to the idea of salvation in the clause before. (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, p.704)
Robertson, on the topic of particles, wrote:
(ii) Kai. ... The Mere Connective ('And') ... kai tauta (frequent in ancient Greek). See in particular Eph. 2:8 , kai touto ouk ex umon, where touto refers to the whole conception, not to chariti. (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, pp. 1181-1182)
Robertson, on the topic of prepositions, wrote:
(d) dia ... 3. 'Passing Between' or 'Through.' The idea of interval between leads naturally to that of passing between two objects or parts of objects. 'Through' is thus not the original meaning of dia, but is a very common one. ... The agent may also be expressed by dia. This function was also performed in the ancient Greek, through, when means or instrument was meant, the instrumental case was commonly employed. dia is thus used with inanimate and animate objects. Here, of course, the agent is conceived as coming in between the non-attainmnet and the attainment of the object in view. ... Abstract ideas are frequently so expressed, as sesosmenoi dia pisteos (Eph. 2:8 ), ... (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, pp. 580-582)
"Gift" and "faith," are both nouns and would not need to agree. However, agreement in gender is necessary between a pronoun and its antecedent. The demonstrative pronoun will change its gender to match the previous noun (or other substantive) to which it refers.
This verse tells us that the antecedent for "This" is also the "gift of God." But the "gift" cannot be "faith" because there is no agreement in gender between "faith" and the demonstrative pronoun, "touto" (This).
You can look up lots of Greek scholars work and let me know if you find any one disagreeing with this, because I have not among scholars.
I do agree “natural faith” which all mature adults have is a gift from God and, as we know from scripture: people do place natural faith in lots of things and people even worshipping rocks and wood.
The question that needs to be asked: can this God given natural faith be directed toward the Creator, just to believe in the possibility of God’s existence? Since it takes more faith and really foolishness to believe a god does not exist.
You also need to remember the Greek word translated “Faith” in the English is also translated faithfulness. I would say one of the gifts of the Spirit is faithfulness and not faith itself.
You also seem to be assuming that if the nonbelieving sinner has just some kind of “faith”, he will make the noble, honorable, worthy, righteous and holy choice to follow God, but that type of “faith” comes much later and is part of the unbelievable wonderful gifts God showers on the sinner.
The “faith/trust”, autonomous free will choice the sinner makes is between: being macho, hanging in there, being a good soldier, and being willing to take the punishment you fully deserve or wimping out, giving up and surrendering to your enemy. Like any soldier who surrenders to his enemy, you hate your enemy, but are just willing to humbly accept undeserving charity from your enemy. That little questionable “trust” in the possibility of your enemy having an unbelievable Love that could help you is all the faith you need.
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.
If you want to use Ephesians 1& 2 you need to give specific verses with you interpretation. Above I explained just one verse in Eph. 2 and it took pages of explaining, so I cannot go through two chapters verse by verse, not knowing which verses you are referring to.
You seem to be saying God arbitrarily chooses to save a few with there being no difference from those He does not choose. I use Matt. 18: 21-35 to show forgiveness is not a one-sided transaction.
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.
I do not agree with the Roman Catholic synergism so, we do not need to bring up that strawman.
There is a sequence of events starting with God gifting mature adults with free will and the ability to have natural faith.
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.
I answered you question with a set of questions.
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."
OK, , “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”.
The unregenerated only has humility based on natural desperation and maybe some other stuff, nut not saving faith. He just needs to be humble enough to accept very needed pure undeserving charity as charity.
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.
If you have specific verse, explain them in context and we will try to see if your explanation is the most logical alternative explanation in context.
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.
OK here is your verse: Col. 1:13 "For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son." I totally agree, but what does God use to determine who He will and will not rescue”? Can God not just as easily and safely rescue everyone or is it a power issue or Love issue with God, because I show neither being a problem?
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.
None of the verses you site says: “God is arbitrary in his selection of who he saves.”, but the scriptures are saying that He does the save, not the person.
I give a logical good real reason, why God chose who He saved, while you seem to be saying this hugely important information is not given to us. We need to know in our going to the nonbeliever what help the nonbeliever needs. We can help the nonbeliever see his need to trust God’s Love/mercy/grace/forgiveness and thus accept God’s Love as pure undeserved charity, since he does have the ability to do that act for selfish reasons.
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?"
When sinners go forth hurting themselves and others with their free will choices they will, to begin with, be burden in their conscience, since the law is written on their hearts. They will do all kinds of stuff to relieve this burden, but God is the only real lasting help.
If the person continues to refuse God’s help they might be turned over to satan, but still with the hope things will get so bad they will turn for help from God. And still others will never return and God can know when they reached that point and He will use them for a lesser objective of helping others in their choice.
