Inability of the Will is Never Literal

[Ken Hamrick]

What is the middle position of Romans 3:11 for Psalms 14:2?

The reason no one understands has a lot to do with no one seeking God. Instead, men seek to run from God. They want to avoid being confronted with His truth. In their spirit, they hate God and His truth, which they already know enough of to leave them without excuse. But their spirit drives their mind to construct as many defenses as they can--to rationalize it away if possible, and to call it nonsense (as if calling it that could make it so), and to even resort to being irrational or even attacking the preacher if necessary. A man's mind cannot understand until his spirit turns toward God instead of away. But the convicting power of the Holy Spirit can cause the word of God to "pierce even unto the dividing asunder of soul and spirit..."--in other words, cut them to the heart... in which case, they will wither ask, "what can we do to be saved?" or gnash their teeth, rend their garments and stone the preacher. My point is that such things are matters of the spirit, and so it is the spirit that decides what the mind's attitude will be toward the truth.

 

[Dave G]

Mat. 11:28
"Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.

It is not just the elect who are weary and heavy-laden. The gospel is for all, and we are commanded to preach it to all. The gospel is not merely informative, as if to say, "Some of you might be elect and might believe;" but rather, it is implorative, imploring men to believe:


That's all I have time for today. These are not exhaustive, nor do I intend by these a prooftext battle. There's more to understanding theology than prooftexts.

Ken,

I'll make my answers as brief as I can.
I'll preface this with an observation I've made in other threads, and it was this:
The Lord Jesus "speaks in spiritual" in many places in His word ( see John 6:63 ).

That is what I see in some of these.
Also, context comes into play in many of them.

Matthew 11:28 <--- The context of this is found in the verses prior to it. Matthew 11:25-27, in which He states that His Father has hidden things from the wise and prudent ( see 1 Corinthians 1:18-31 ), and revealed them unto "babes" ( Matthew 18:6 )..."nobody's", by this world's standards. The ones He has revealed the Father to, are the ones He is speaking to, as I see it. In other words, His sheep.

2 Corinthians 5:20 <---- Here Paul is writing to those that have already believed...not to all men. He is telling them to be reconciled, in their minds, to Christ...even though, in reality they already are. Anyone who is a believer has already been reconciled to God ( Romans 5:1, Ephesians 2:16, Colossians 1:20 ). Believers being "dull" in their understanding, it takes much encouragement to "get the message through", and to reckon ourselves as forgiven, dead to sin, etc. From my perspective, he is speaking to them in that way because of the infirmity of their "flesh" ( Romans 6:19 ).

Romans 1 <--- this is Paul speaking to the Roman believers, establishing why he is writing to them.
" by whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:" ( Romans 1:5 )
Paul and the ones accompanying him have received grace and apostleship, for both His name and for obedience to the faith ( see Jude 1:3 ) among all nations ( see Revelation 5:9, Revelation 7:9 ). The purpose of Paul and those who went with him was to spread the gospel among all nations.

2 Thessalonians 1:8, " in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:"
Here I see that Paul is making a declaration...the Lord Jesus is coming from Heaven to take vengeance, in flaming fire on them that know not God and that do not obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ. To me, this does not imply that they will, but that they do not. It is an observation and nothing more.

John 16:8-11 <---- Here I see you making reference to these facts: When Jesus is gone, He will send the Comforter, the Holy Spirit. When He comes, He will do 3 things:
1) He will reprove ( reprimand, not "convict" ) the world for its sins. One of which is for not believing Him. How? Through believers ( Ephesians 5:11 ). Again, a declaration, not an implication. The world hates Christ and will not come to Him, the Light of the world ( John 3:19-20 ). Why? Because He will reprove them.

2) He will reprove ( reprimand, not "convict" ) the world "of" ( from or by..an example is, Saul OF Tarsus. He was from / "of" Tarsus ) righteousness...The Lord has ascended into heaven and now sits at the right hand of God the Father.
Similar to item 1, believers will reprove the world of ( by or from ) His righteousness. they are His representatives of righteousness here on earth.

3) He will reprove ( reprimand, not "convict" ) the world "of" ( again, from or by ) judgment, because judgment against their father the devil ( Ephesians 2:2 ), the prince of this world, has already taken place.

That is how I understand that passage, after many years.


Mark 16:15-16 <---- Yet another declaration. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved. He that does not, shall be damned. Similar to John 3:18, in which those who do not believe are condemned already, evidencing themselves to be condemned by their refusal to believe on Christ, the people described in Mark 16:15-16 are either saved or lost. Christ is making that distinction here. A set of simple facts. I see no implication that people can or cannot believe, only that they either do, or do not.

Matthew 11:20-24 <---- The Lord Jesus is holding the cities of Israel responsible for not repenting after seeing His mighty works...even though the Jews require a sign ( see Matthew 12:38, John 4:48, 1 Corinthians 1:22 ), and He gives them plenty...yet they refuse to believe, even as He said. Why? Because the unregenerate will not repent. He is speaking , once again, as their Lord and Master under the Old Covenant...to which He is still holding them responsible to obey Him as its Author.
Like Ninaveh repented when Jonah was sent to it, the cities of Tyre and Sidon would have repented of their disobedience, in the temporal sense...but Israel would not have.


As you can see, I look at things very differently, sir.
I'm sorry if it confuses you, but there it is.

To me, none of these passages show that the Gentiles are commanded to repent in the eternal and spiritual sense.
Note: Some of these passages are speaking to Israel, not to the Gentiles.

Israel was under an agreed-upon obligation under the Law of Moses, to obey Him.
In other words, the Lord never made a binding agreement with the Gentile nations, only Israel, and while He commands men everywhere to repent, they will not..even the vast majority of those who explicitly promised to obey Him under the Law.

Again, given the corrupt nature of man, true repentance must be bestowed on a person, and can only take effect if one is born again.

 

[Iconoclast]

Still reading...

Me too.

 

[Dave G]

He will not save us until we believe, since unbelief is spiritual rebellion against God.

Ken,

I see places that state that He will not "seal" them until they believe ( Ephesians 1:13 ), that He saves everyone that believes, and that only those that believe will have eternal life...
But I don't see any one passage that clearly states that a person is not saved until they believe.

I do see passages that state that people were chosen "in Him" before the foundation of the world ( Ephesians 1:4-5 ) that they were chosen to salvation ( 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 ), and that some people's names were not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world ( Revelation 13:8 ).

Is it understood by you as stating this, or do you see a passage of Scripture stating this?

 

[Rockson]

Ken,
2 Thessalonians 1:8, " in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:"
Here I see that Paul is making a declaration...the Lord Jesus is coming from Heaven to take vengeance, in flaming fire on them that know not God and that do not obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ. To me, this does not imply that they will, but that they do not. It is an observation and nothing more.

Well Dave it speaks of God taking vengeance.You know vengeance is defined by many as payback, or retribution. Retribution of what? Retribution for one committing the sins according to Calvinists that the creator wanted one and ordained that one should commit all the time? So they do what he actually wanted and somehow motivated them to do them (ordained them as some would say) and then he goes after them for punishment?

And payback for what? For doing what his will somehow was all the time????? This is what we're supposed to accept as being even the slightest bit reasonable?

 

[Dave G]

Rockson,

Since you and I see God's word so very differently, I often do not reply to your posts.
The reason?
It seems not to lead to a firmer understanding of the "Calvinist" position, no matter how much many of us try to explain things.

However, I'll run through it again for the benefit of both you and the reader in general.

Well Dave it speaks of God taking vengeance.You know vengeance is defined by many as payback, or retribution.

Yes, He is taking vengeance...on them that do not "know" Him, on them that do not "obey" the Gospel, and in unbelievers for other reasons...like troubling His children ( 2 Thessalonians 1:6 ).

Retribution for one committing the sins according to Calvinists that the creator wanted one and ordained that one should commit all the time?

I believe that we've covered this ground many times, sir, and still it seems you are not understanding what we see in God's word.
I also get the impression that your continued comments may go further than that...I suspect that, not only do you disagree with what many of us that are "Calvninists" state, but that you are also deeply offended by the God that we represent in our comments.
But, since I am not a mind reader, I cannot say for sure what your motivations are.

Again:

God does not ordain the sins that men do.
But, knowing their hearts and minds, and knowing the end from the beginning, He uses all of it to set things up in such a way as to bring glory and honor to Himself...for His mercy, for His kindness, for His goodness that leads men to repentance ( Romans 2:1-6 ) and for other things that He does in His righteousness and perfect judgment.

For example,
Choosing to save some and to reprobate ( leave them in their sins, and even go so far as to allow Satan to blind others ( 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 ) ) others does not mean He is responsible for their sins...but He is responsible for saving His children from His eternal wrath.
It is also fully within His right as God, and as the One we've offended, to pardon some and to leave the rest to the punishment for which they are all fully deserving of.

With that said,

I think it a good practice to refer to what you have stated ( and which I will summarize as I understand you stating )..."that God has not only taken vengeance as "payback", but that He does so even while sponsoring the evil that men do, and then holding them somehow accountable for it".
This is not the God of Abraham...it is the "god" of "Hyper-Calvinism" that treats men like robots and wires them for either blind obedience, or blind disobedience.


To address this, I would like to develop what is happening, as I see it, in part of 1 Thessalonians...since you've brought it up.

To be continued.

 

[Dave G]

In 2 Thessalonians 1:3-12,
The first thing I see, is Paul and Silvanus ( from verse 1 ) are "bound" to always give thanks for the Thessalonian believers, as it is "meet" or suitable, because their faith grows "exceedingly" and the charity of each one of them abounds towards each other.

In verse 4, I see Paul and Silvanus admitting that their love for one another makes them "glory" or speak highly of the Thessalonians believers among the other churches of God...for their patience and faith in all their persecutions and tribulations ( difficult tests ) that they endure.

In verse 5, I see that those very same persecutions and tribulations are a manifest token ( shown to be evidence ) of the righteous judgment of God, so that the Thessalonians may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which they also suffer ( see Philippians 1:29 ).

In verse 6, Paul and Silvanus see that it is a righteous thing with God to recompense ( pay back ) with tribulation ( difficult circumstances ) those that trouble ( seek the hurt of ) the Thessalonians.

In verse 7, it continues this with Paul telling the Thessalonians, who are troubled, that they will rest with him and Silvanus when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from Heaven with His mighty angels...

Verse 8: ...in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and who do not obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Verse 9: Those that do not know God and do not obey the Gospel ( the "whosoever does not believe" ) , will be punished with everlasting destruction ( in case you're wondering, that's eternal Hell fire ) away from the presence of the Lord and the power of His glory.

Verse 10: At that time, He shall come to be glorified ( praised ) in, or among, His saints ( the "whoseover believeth" ) and to be admired among all them that believe in that day. Paul also connects this with the fact that their testimony of this was believed among the Thessalonians.

Verse 11: The reason for all him stating all of this? Because Paul and Silvanus always pray for them that God would count them worthy of His "calling", and to fulfill all the good pleasure of His goodness and the work of faith with power...

Verse 12: ...so that the Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified "in" them, and them "in" Him. This is all done according to the grace of God an the Lord Jesus Christ.


What can be said here, is that God is fully within His right to punish them that trouble believers, His precious children.
Just because the unbelievers do not believe the Gospel, does not mean that they are able to, in and of themselves...


It means just what it says...that they do not.

Implication does not equal declaration.
Just because some may see that verse 8 may be implying that people can believe, does not mean that it actually declares it.

 

[Dave G]

Getting into more detail:

He takes vengeance on those who, by their very nature and in their sinfulness and hard-heartedness, persist in hating Him, His Son and His children.
It's completely fair, once a person realizes:

A) What being "holy" really is, compared to our faulty understanding of it as mere men.

B) What being fully righteous and blameless really is, compared to our faulty and self-serving "what?...we haven't done anything that bad!" mentality as selfish men.

C) That God can do whatever He wants, with rebellious subjects who refuse to obey Him.
It's one thing to treat someone who has not disobeyed, as a criminal...it's quite another to treat them precisely as the "Adamic Covenant" states: "...for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." ( Genesis 2:17 ).

God commanded, and Adam botched it, but good.
Blame Adam if you want to, but the question is...do you sin?
Then you're still responsible for it, as am I.

I would think that this fact by it's very nature should make you realize, after all the shrapnel hits the ground, our utter and complete helplessness and hopelessness before God, and compel us to seek His mercy.
But we still won't.
Not without the miracle of the new birth.


What I've tried to establish here, Rockson, is that God is fully within His right to take vengeance on those who hate Him and His children.
The fact that they do not believe the Gospel is being used to distinguish them from the ones Paul is addressing in this letter.

Some obey, most don't.
The ones that do, are doing so because God has chosen them to salvation ( see the next letter, 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 ).
So, the next time you feel prompted to ask why God is within His right to punish those He never "gives a chance", think of it like this:

The governor of the state that requires the death penalty for heinous crimes, can choose to pardon some to show the mercy of the state, or reserve them all in their death sentence to show the power of the state and its willingness to carry through with the advertised punishment.

So they do what he actually wanted and somehow motivated them to do them (ordained them as some would say) and then he goes after them for punishment?

And payback for what? For doing what his will somehow was all the time????? This is what we're supposed to accept as being even the slightest bit reasonable?

Again, it doesn't work like that, and I think we've covered this ground many times.
What's "unreasonable" to us as corrupt men, is the fact that we don't see things from God's perspective...we see them from our perspective.
Despite explaining it in great detail, it seems you still have an inaccurate understanding of what is presented.


However, I've tried to explain it yet again and I hope that I've been helpful.
May God bless you.

 

[Reformed]

Dave, I am glad you decided to participate in this thread. Although I stopped posting I have followed it. I lack patience with certain posters and it brings out a side of me that I truly desire to mortify. I appreciate your comments and insight.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[utilyan]

God doesn't save sinners because He's meritoriously pleased with our faith. Rather,, He will not save us until we believe, since unbelief is spiritual rebellion against God.

I'm not a Calvinist because I comprehend God's command to be his actual want and desire rather than a deception.

I think there is plenty of confusion between God's motivation to save and that finish line of being saved.

God is trying to save everyone right now. Just telling us we have sinned itself is an act of mercy.

Paul is an excellent example. Zero faith, Zero works, Yet God intervenes on his behalf.

God's motivation is mercy.

 

[Dave G]

For those of you that may be interested in articles that speak to why "Fullerism" is considered to be in error, here is one I ran across sometime ago:
What is the Problem with Fullerism? - Elder Joe Holder
While I don't agree with everything said, I do agree with the core of it.

Also,
Another site that promotes material for "Strict, Particular Baptists", and their section on what they think of Andrew Fuller's teachings:
The Association of Historic Baptists » Fullerism
Again, while I'm not sure I can stand fully behind everything this site states, I agree with the core of what is stated about Fuller's teachings and other things I have taken the time to look at.


I happen to believe that a solid understanding of how "Total Depravity", election and Christ's atonement are described and how they all interact with one another, goes a long way towards understanding why Andrew Fuller's teachings on inability, cannot be true.

At the end of the day, my only reason for addressing this subject is to point to Scripture, and to point to what is being taught "as Scriptural" versus what I see it teaching, and tell someone why I don't believe it to be Scriptural.
From my perspective, the teachings are what need to be addressed, with no "ad hominem" involved, nor posting the teacher's name "up in lights and blazoning it all over the place" that he or she is a "false teacher".

That determination should be made by the individual, and even then, only to "mark and avoid" ( Romans 16:17 ) them.
I don't see anywhere in Scripture that believers are given leave to seek to damage someone's reputation or otherwise be nasty to them or about them.
I see nowhere in God's word that anyone who is considered by an opposing person or group, should have their names or reputations dragged through the mud, and attacked with so much hatred or sensational language like what I see on so many websites today.

We as Christ's sheep should be sober, watchful, and ever-discerning.
If we think something is in error, I see no reason not to address it from the point of Scripture, carefully evaluate it, and then accept or reject it from a personal standpoint.
Telling others my opinion shouldn't be "off the table", but public slander and libel, vitriol, castigation and lambasting?

That's off the table.



Some here, given what I have written, may or may not believe that I'm already guilty of some of this... But it was never my intention to portray Andrew Fuller in a poor light...
Just that I consider him to have been in error, and why.


What I'm finding, the older I get, is that when it comes to disagreements, what we see as error in doctrines should always be the primary focus.

But at the same time, let us leave off treating each other like animals, shall we?
I realize that many of us are passionate about what we believe about the Bible and why, and that's all well and good...but in the process, we really should consider how the Lord wants us to behave, towards both those that are Christ's, and "them that are without".

I believe without a doubt, that It's more important for us to obey Him and His commands, then it is to "be right" at the expense of any person we may disagree with.


May God, in His amazing grace, bless each and every one of you with gifts designed to make you see how very much He loves His children.

 

[Ken Hamrick]

A little background on me:
I believed on Christ during the preaching of God's word in a "Traditionalist" ( what some might call "4 Point Arminian" ) Independent Baptist church in 1978. From then until the age of 37 in 2003, I had never dealt with, much less heard preached, anything resembling what is known as "Calvinism" from any pulpit in the churches I was a member of, or had ever visited.

In 2003 a friend asked me to read 3 passages out of the Bible ( Romans 8:29-30, Ephesians 1:4-5 and 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 ), and the rest was slowly understood out of Scripture during Bible studies over the next 5-10 years ( and mostly by myself, independent of any influence ). I don't own any books on theology and I have no use for commentaries, as I believe Scripture is it's own commentary.

With that said, I'd like to assure you and anyone who reads this, that my conclusions are strictly my own, and from my own private studies in God's word, for the most part.
I say, "for the most part" because it would be untruthful for me to state that I never looked at writings by prominent "Calvinists" during that time period, but that I also confess to never having needed or trusted their conclusions above my own personal responsibility to get the answers strictly from the Lord and not men...

Thanks, Dave. I appreciate your Christian tone. I was saved in a Wesleyan-type holiness church in '80, at 16. As an adult, I came to understand that true salvation can't be lost--that, if a supposed believer doesn't make it to heaven it won't be because the Lord kicked him out, but it will be because he never had saving faith to begin with. So I became a Southern Baptist. Like you, my drive and call to study theology did not lead me to seminary, but to 20 years of self study. Unlike you, I have found the theology books of some great men of the past to be very beneficial. I don't believe that God has explicitly given the Church pastors and teachers for no reason. That doesn't mean we are to blindly agree with all that they say, but one cannot even think of all the aspects of some things without reading what others have thought of them.

 

[Dave G]

That doesn't mean we are to blindly agree with

Ken,
I can only assure you that I am not blindly agreeing with "total inability".
You may perhaps think that I am, and that is, of course, your prerogative to believe that way.

I see "Total Inability" born out, in great detail, in Scripture... and have, for some years now.
The more I read, the more I'm convinced in the details.

From my perspective, I see the doctrines of God's word like some people see the way components plug into a sound system;
A better analogy would be... on an automobile: the engine, transmission, drive shaft, u-joints, differential, axles, hubs, wheels and finally to tires that hit the blacktop, are all interdependent upon one another.

That is how I see His doctrines all relating to one another.
All of God's word interacts and depends upon other things that He has said in other places ( Matthew 4:4 ).

To me, "Total Depravity" interacts neatly with all the rest, and is the basis for why God needs to do all the work involved in saving someone, instead of giving "dead" men a "leg up" or a "boost", and then doing the rest once we commit to at least "trying".

"Irresistible Grace" is how He does it...because of "total inability".
"Unconditional Election" is His choice of certain sinners to apply that "Irresistible Grace" to...
"Limited Atonement", or "Particular Redemption" is who He does it for...
While the "Perseverance of the Saints" is why they do it...because they love Him and realize that...

It's all of Him.

Since we're completely helpless and hopeless, He gets all the credit, and anyone that is saved stands on nothing but His mercy and grace ( Titus 3:5-6 ).
There really is nothing to boast about...neither is there even the slightest "whiff" of man's involvement...except as the passive recipient of His gift of eternal life.
His children stand there, and get hit right in the face with it ( Romans 10:20 ).
It's the pitch they never saw coming.

Total Grace.
That is what makes it so amazing.
Otherwise, it's cooperative, and depends even in the slightest bit, on something a man can do.

This is my last reply to you in this thread.
As I've said before, and will always be willing to say something similar to everyone I post to on this forum:



May God bless you sir, and may you always look to Him in your trials and tribulations;
Never forgetting His abundant mercy and grace towards His children.

 

[Ken Hamrick]

...In addition, I believe that I have established, from Scripture, what is the "default" condition of men with regard to our attitudes towards God in post # 15.

I'll address that as time permits...

...As I see it, @Reformed brought up the observation of many "Calvinists" that I know of, who see man's inability as just that...inability and "deadness"... while I see perhaps another ( and larger ) facet to our deadness that leads me to the firm belief that not only is it "inability" or "Total Depravity" according to the TULIP summary developed during the Synod of Dordrecht in 1619, but that what makes it that way is both man's love of sin, and our innate hatred of God for commanding us to repent, or give it up, in favor of obeying Him.
In other words, the "will not" becomes a concrete "can not"...the heart of man being described as "stony" in Ezekiel 11:19, Ezekiel 36:26, "darkened" in Romans 1:21, " "blind" in Ephesians 4:17-19, and "deceitful" and "wicked" in Jeremiah 17:9.
Not only is the "heart" ( which I believe to be man's "seat" of affections and desires, see Galatians 5:24 ) or "flesh" ( the outer or "old man" as opposed to the "inward man" as developed in Romans 7:14-25 and Galatians 5:16-18 ) of which both the heart/nature and mind consist, the problem at the center... but these things are described as being at "enmity" ( actively opposed or hostile to ) with God ( Romans 8:5-8 ).

We agree on most of this, I think. I am in the middle and not an Arminian, after all. It is God who determines destinies, and He alone decides whether or not to successfully persuade a sinner to believe. But I must ask, with one of Fuller's contemporaries whose name I've forgotten, if men are so averse to God that they will refuse to believe and refuse to come to Him for salvation, then what need have we for any further inability? I contend that there's no legitimate way within English, Greek or Hebrew (or any other language) to change a "will not" into a "cannot" except by the means of a figurative meaning. Edwards had this right when he warned that thinking that inability of the will was literal was circular and absurd, and was equivalent to saying "a man could not will if he did will," which is self-canceling. For example, you've said that the "'will not' becomes a concrete 'can not.'" To this, I must ask, does the man really want to? Is it the case that the man wants to but cannot? If not, if he does not want to, then where is the "can not?" "Cannot" only applies in the face of a will to do a thing. That is why, in English or any other language, inability of the will is a figurative expression--but it is universally understood that where the will is literally involved, the man has it within his power to choose either direction--and where an inability is literally involved, the will is all together irrelevant to the matter. It is commonly understood that if the will is involved, then any inability is figurative. If an employer who had planned on laying off an employee, but instead felt pity and could not bring himself to do it, it may be said that "he was unable to lay off the employee." But if the employer was constrained by law from laying off the employee, it may also be said that "he was unable to lay off the employee." Both sentences use the same words, but one is a literal inability and one is a figurative inability--figurative because the employer literally had it within his power to lay off the man.

As much as Calvinists might want to emphasize the reality of the inability of the will by claiming it to be a literal expression, the rules of language stand against you. More soon...

 

[Ken Hamrick]

Ken,
I can only assure you that I am not blindly agreeing with "total inability".
You may perhaps think that I am, and that is, of course, your prerogative to believe that way.

Not at all, Dave. I just didn't want you to think that I blindly agreed with them.

 

[Ken Hamrick]

Dave,

I hope you'll stick around so we can discuss some things, but I'll understand if you need to move on. Be blessed!

 

[Ken Hamrick]

...From my perspective, I see the doctrines of God's word like some people see the way components plug into a sound system;
A better analogy would be... on an automobile: the engine, transmission, drive shaft, u-joints, differential, axles, hubs, wheels and finally to tires that hit the blacktop, are all interdependent upon one another.
That is how I see His doctrines all relating to one another.
All of God's word interacts and depends upon other things that He has said in other places ( Matthew 4:4 )...

That's how I see it, too!

 

[Ken Hamrick]

I think it's both.

For example, consider Romans 1:18-32 and Romans 3:10-18...
To me, these speak to a will that is not just neutral, but has grown to the point of having an attitude and a behavior that is against God while being simultaneously ( spiritually ) dead ( stuck ) in trespasses and sins ( Ephesians 2:1-5 ).

Throw in John 3:19-20, and I see that mankind, apart from being born again and made righteous in Jesus Christ, is completely unwilling, to the point of hatred, to come to Christ ..."lest" his deeds be "reproved" or corrected. Here I see the "light " as being Jesus Christ, the Light of the world ( John 8:12 )...so, the unrighteous or wicked, from God's viewpoint, hate the "Light" and will not come to Him.
Add to this, condemning statements like these ( Proverbs 29:27, Matthew 10:22, Matthew 24:9, John 7:7, John 15:18, John 15:23, John 17:14, 1 John 3:13 ), and I think it can be shown that man is not simply dead towards God, but rebelliously in love with sin, and has a negative disposition towards his Creator.

So, "dead" in trespasses and sins means more then just "neutrally" dead...it can mean "slightly against" all the way to "positively hostile", at least to me.
In other words, mankind starts out life, not with our backs towards Him, but with our "backsides" towards Him....

But Dave, you have not, in all of that above, brought forth anything that cannot be explained as unwillingness. Where is the literal inability? What it amounts to is that you're saying that a man who is so unwilling is literally unable to turn to Christ. But if he was literally unable, then he could not turn to Christ even if he wanted to with all his heart--now, that's a literal inability. But this is not the case, is it? Even you would have to agree, (I think), that if the man wanted with all his heart to turn to the Lord, nothing would stand in his way. Can you see what I'm saying? You're trying to emphasize this inability so much that, without realizing it, you're trying to use a figurative expression as if it were literal. It's like when someone uses the word "literally" to emphasize something that was not literally true, such as when describing how startled one was by saying, "I literally died [when the startling event occurred]."

From my perspective, this fierce resistance, spiritually, is why the Lord says, " No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day" ( John 6:44 )

Is it not interesting that the verse says "draw him" and not "regenerate" him? Drawing is persuasion that targets the will.

Further support:
Part of the believer's endurance in trials and tribulations is in suffering persecution...which it has been given to us ( Philippians 1:29 ) to endure.
That persecution is due to the world's hatred of our Saviour, Jesus Christ...not just their ambivalence.

As God, and as our Creator ( John 1:1-3 ), He is hated according to Romans 1:30 and others that I believe I have shown above, while anyone associated with Him is hated as well:

Amos 5:10
Psalms 34:21
Proverbs 29:10
Proverbs 29:27

May God bless you richly, sir.

No amount of hatred can make one literally unable. I hate paying so much taxes; but if I claim that because of that hatred, I am now literally unable to pay them, no one would believe me--and rightly so.

May you be blessed as well!

 

[Rockson]

Dave, I am glad you decided to participate in this thread. Although I stopped posting I have followed it. I lack patience with certain posters and it brings out a side of me that I truly desire to mortify. I appreciate your comments and insight.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

And I suppose if we who are of a different persuasion than you on these things allowed our flesh to rise up and become angry we too would be crossing a line that we shouldn't. Feelings of exasperation I can assure you can go both ways.

 

[Rockson]

I'm not a Calvinist because I comprehend God's command to be his actual want and desire rather than a deception.

Very well put and that's something I wish our Calvinists friends would consider. In the REAL world and in a court of law it would be defined that way as well.