Romans 5:12 - the only possible view

[Winman]

Biblicist is simply saying because we are commanded to "obey" the gospel that Romans 8:7 says we are unable to do so.

Scripture shows differently;

Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Romans 6:17-18 shows that while these persons were yet servants of sin, that they obeyed the gospel which was delivered them.

It was THEN (after obeying) that they were made free from sin and "became" servants of righteousness.

All of these scriptures show that Biblicist's interpretation of Romans 8:7 is error. It is not teaching that unregenerate men cannot believe. It is simply saying that while a man is "carnally minded" he cannot obey or please God.

So obviously unregenerate men are not always "carnally minded".

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist is simply saying because we are commanded to "obey" the gospel that Romans 8:7 says we are unable to do so.

Scripture shows differently;

Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Romans 6:17-18 shows that while these persons were yet servants of sin, that they obeyed the gospel which was delivered them.

It was THEN (after obeying) that they were made free from sin and "became" servants of righteousness.

All of these scriptures show that Biblicist's interpretation of Romans 8:7 is error. It is not teaching that unregenerate men cannot believe. It is simply saying that while a man is "carnally minded" he cannot obey or please God.

So obviously unregenerate men are not always "carnally minded".

First, every text used refers to those who became believers but none of these texts explain or describe HOW that occurred. You simply ASSUME it is how you teach.

SEcond, we do not deny that the elect obey the gospel and obedience is essential to salvation and thus previously unregenerate elect will obey the gospel.

Here is a question for you. Does Romans 8:8 provide Romans 8:7 as the explanation why all "in the flesh CANNOT PLEASE GOD"?

Is not the ability to come to God by faith the minimual requirement to please God according to Heb. 11:6?

Should it not be obvious that a mindset of enmity against God makes it impossible for that mindset to submit to God by faith or come to him. Do you know of anyone who hates you that will come submissively to you????

 

[The Biblicist]

Sorry, but until you can acknowledge the CLEAR and OBVIOUS Biblical distinction between LAW and GRACE we have no foundation on which to continue our discussions.

I find this quite amusing. You are demanding that I come to your position or there is no foundation to continue our discussions. However, if I came to the precise point you are attempting to make in regard to the Law and grace there would be no need for our discusssion. Amusing!

 

[Winman]

First, every text used refers to those who became believers but none of these texts explain or describe HOW that occurred. You simply ASSUME it is how you teach.

Faith comes by hearing the word of God (Rom 10:17). These persons heard the gospel and believed it. AFTER believing the gospel they "became" servants of righteousness. The order is clear and simple.

SEcond, we do not deny that the elect obey the gospel and obedience is essential to salvation and thus previously unregenerate elect will obey the gospel.

No, it shows these persons first obeyed or believed, and THEN they became the servants of righteousness. Until they first obeyed and believed they were still servants to sin.

Here is a question for you. Does Romans 8:8 provide Romans 8:7 as the explanation why all "in the flesh CANNOT PLEASE GOD"?

Yes, but obviously men are not always "in the flesh" or "carnally minded". Cornelius did not have the Holy Spirit, yet he was called "devout". The 3000 persons who got saved at Pentacost did not have the Holy Spirit, and yet the scriptures also called them "devout".

Acts 2:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

These Jews weren't saved, and they did not have the indwelling Holy Spirit, yet they are called "devout men". It was only after hearing Peter preach did they repent and be baptized in Jesus's name for the remission of sins that they received the Spirit.

This shows that unregenerate men are not always "in the flesh" or "carnally minded" That is what I am trying to prove to you, but you ignore the scriptures. I didn't make this stuff up, look in your Bible and see for yourself.

Is not the ability to come to God by faith the minimual requirement to please God according to Heb. 11:6?

Yes, you must believe God to please him. Cornelius believed God, and God recognized his gifts, but he did not have the Spirit yet.

Should it not be obvious that a mindset of enmity against God makes it impossible for that mindset to submit to God by faith or come to him. Do you know of anyone who hates you that will come submissively to you????

While a man is "carnally minded" YES, he cannot do anything that pleases God, and he cannot obey God's laws.

That doesn't prove the man cannot pay attention to the word of God and be spiritually minded. And that is exactly what all these many scriptures I have showed you prove.

The 3000 at Pentacost did not have the Spirit, yet they were able to sit and listen to Peter's preaching and came under great conviction. Afterward they were able to believe the gospel and receive the Spirit.

Why do you attempt to change what the scripture plainly shows?

 

[The Biblicist]

Faith comes by hearing the word of God (Rom 10:17). These persons heard the gospel and believed it. AFTER believing the gospel they "became" servants of righteousness. The order is clear and simple.

yes, RHEMA not Logos and thus WORD OF COMMAND as spelled out in 2 Cor. 4:6.

No, it shows these persons first obeyed or believed, and THEN they became the servants of righteousness. Until they first obeyed and believed they were still servants to sin.

That is precisely what I said. The elect while in unbelief are servants of sin but when the gospel comes "IN MUCH ASSURANCE" they become servants of righteousness - 1 Thes. 1:4-5.

The gospel does not come "IN MUCH ASSURANCE" to all does it? Just as it does not come "IN power" or "IN the holy Spirit" to all does it? No, it comes "in word only" to many without any of these things.

Yes, but

You pit YOUR INTERPETATIONS against clear explicit precept to the contrary - Rom. 8:7-8. To the contrary of YOUR INTEPRETATIONS of certain scriptures those "in the flesh" cannot please God but those in your scriptures do please God proving YOUR INTERPETATION is false.

There were born again men and thus "devout" people among Israel from the time of Moses and among those who were waiting as beleivers in the Old Testament gospel when Christ came. They simply did not know that Jesus was that Christ and when they heard it they believed, but not to be born again but because they were already believers.

 

[Skandelon]

I find this quite amusing. You are demanding that I come to your position or there is no foundation to continue our discussions. However, if I came to the precise point you are attempting to make in regard to the Law and grace there would be no need for our discusssion. Amusing!

I find it equally amusing that you won't join with the scholars of your own system in drawing the distinction between the purpose of the law and the gospel of grace.

I think you have backed yourself into a corner in order to win a particular point in a debate and now won't admit you have out Calvined the Calvinists.

 

[Skandelon]

I'll get to the rest of your post in a sec, I wanted to address this because its happening all too often in my opinion:

I don't want to come across insultive or degrading but you are sending out your rational ability to think on a vacation when saying what you say above.

Well, just so you know, it is always insulting to call someone's argument irrational without defining precisely what is not rational or reasonable. Believe me, your view seems just an unteniable from my perspective as mine does from yours, so there is really no profit in going there. In fact, any argument I could just repeat to you verbatim is typically just question begging and that is the lowest form of debate. For example, a kid might say, "That's not true because your wrong," which is an obvious form of question begging, but when we as adults do it here its virtually at that same level of maturity in a discussion. So, to say, "Your view isn't rational because I've deemed it irrational," is not helpful. It's like saying, "You're wrong because I don't agree with you."

 

[Winman]

yes, RHEMA not Logos and thus WORD OF COMMAND as spelled out in 2 Cor. 4:6.

I don't know Greek, so your argument is meaningless to me. I have no way to know if you are correct or not.

That is precisely what I said. The elect while in unbelief are servants of sin but when the gospel comes "IN MUCH ASSURANCE" they become servants of righteousness - 1 Thes. 1:4-5.

No, you believe a person must be regenerated before they can believe. But Romans 6 and the many other scriptures I showed all showed that a person first believes and AFTERWARD receives the Spirit and is regenerated.

The gospel does not come "IN MUCH ASSURANCE" to all does it? Just as it does not come "IN power" or "IN the holy Spirit" to all does it? No, it comes "in word only" to many without any of these things.

The gospel has power, but that power is only effectual if you first believe it.

1 The 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

A person must first believe the word of God before it effectually works in them.

You pit YOUR INTERPETATIONS against clear explicit precept to the contrary - Rom. 8:7-8. To the contrary of YOUR INTEPRETATIONS of certain scriptures those "in the flesh" cannot please God but those in your scriptures do please God proving YOUR INTERPETATION is false.

Nope. I showed you multiple scriptures that showed men first believed the gospel, and then afterward received the Spirit.

This proves your personal interpretation of Romans 8:7-8 cannot be correct. Obviously unregenerate men are not always "carnally minded", they must have the ability to be spiritually minded if they so choose.

There were born again men and thus "devout" people among Israel from the time of Moses and among those who were waiting as beleivers in the Old Testament gospel when Christ came. They simply did not know that Jesus was that Christ and when they heard it they believed, but not to be born again but because they were already believers.

They were not born again or regenerated. Peter told them they were guilty of crucifying Jesus with wicked hands.

Yet, Peter believed they all could both repent and believe on Jesus for the remission of their sins, and he told them if they do so they would receive the Holy Ghost.

You need to quit twisting scripture to try and make Calvinism work, it ain't gonna happen. Calvinism is false and teaches the exact opposite of scripture.

 

[Skandelon]

but the phrase "is not subject to the law of God" is descriptive of the reaction of fallen man regardless of what may or may not be the content of the command.

Here is the problem with that line of reasoning. There is a difference in man's ability to hear a particular command (like thou shalt not steal) and obey it and his ability to fulfill the full demands of the law. So, what you are doing is presuming that because man can't fulfill the full demands of the law then he must equally be unable to fulfill any command of that law, which clearly isn't the case. So, of course we fall short of the full demands of keeping the law, because if we fail in any one point then we fall short, but that doesn't mean man isn't able to refrain from building a idol or shaving the hair on the side of his face, or whatever.

So, here is your logical construct:

1. Man cannot keep every demand of the law
2. Therefore man cannot keep any demands of the law
3. If man cannot keep any demands of the law then he cannot keep any demand at all.

Number 2 doesn't follow from number one because scripture never teaches that man can't keep any command, it only teaches they fall short if they even break one command.

And even if number 2 was validated as true, number 3 doesn't necessarily follow unless also independently validated by the text, because who is to say that the 'demand of grace' is equal in purpose and thus enabling power as the 'demand of law?'

 

[The Biblicist]

I find it equally amusing that you won't join with the scholars of your own system in drawing the distinction between the purpose of the law and the gospel of grace.

I have never ever claimed the purpose of the law was to save anyone - that is not merely purily fantasy in your thinking but insultive. However, the purpose of the gospel is dual according to 2 Cor. 1:15-16 and God is pleased with either.

I think you have backed yourself into a corner in order to win a particular point in a debate and now won't admit you have out Calvined the Calvinists.

,

First, I have consistently disclaimed I am a "calvinist" because I reject a great deal of what Calvin and Reformed Baptists believe.

Second, only by intentionally perverting my position is there any substance to your argument, thus there is nothing to it. I have only denied the purpose of the gospel is to save everyone that hears it or saves anyone apart from coming "IN power and IN the Holy Spirit and IN much assurance" as to all others it comes "in word only." This is HOW IT COMES not how it is received by men which is your perversion of this text. "IN much assurance" is not a corporate experenice but a personal individual experience just as there is no such thing as corporate salvation or electio to salvation.

 

[Skandelon]

I have never ever claimed the purpose of the law was to save anyone

Then why point to the Law's insufficiency to accomplish salvation for fallen mankind as proof that the gospel is likewise insufficient to accomplish salvation for fallen mankind?

Apparently you think the law's insufficiencies in accomplishing the 'desired outcome' for fallen humanity PROVES the gospel's insufficiencies in accomplishing the desired outcome for fallen humanity, but the scriptures never teach this.

The verse you harp on is Rom. 8:7 which doesn't even mention the gospel or grace. Do you have any other verses which teach the insufficiency of the gospel in the face of the apparently overwhelming depraved nature of man? I guess its just too bad that God couldn't come up with a message that was powerful enough to enable lost men to respond?

 

[The Biblicist]

Then why point to the Law's insufficiency to accomplish salvation for fallen mankind as proof that the gospel is likewise insufficient to accomplish salvation for fallen mankind?

Again, your are reworking my words to fit your agenda. Clever debate tactic yes, accurate, no!

Your argument is so worded above that it represents my position as one that believes the real issue between law and the gospel is salvation which is clearly not the issue being made by my position as I have never claimed the purpose of the law was to save anyone or that God's purpose of the law was to save anyone. The purpose of the law is to reveal the state of fallen man to be INCAPABLE of obedience to God and thus a sinner who only and continually violates the Law of God and thus IS by nature at enmity against God and is not subject to the Law of God and neither indeed can be (Rom. 8:7)and that is the condition of all who are "in the flesh" and that is why they cannot please God (Rom. 8:8). Therefore, it is impossible that salvation can originate through their own obedience because of their NATURE. That is the purpose of the Law.

The purpose of the gospel is to DECLARE/ANNOUNCE that God has provided salvation through the obedience of one who BY NATURE is sinless and can obey God's law and whose death can and does satisfy the eternal penalty of disobedience. However, it is not the purpose of the gospel to save every man that hears it or to deal with the fallen nature of man. That is the purpose and power of the Holy Spirit according to God's eternal purpose of election TO salvation.

Apparently you think the law's insufficiencies in accomplishing the 'desired outcome' for fallen humanity PROVES the gospel's insufficiencies in accomplishing the desired outcome for fallen humanity, but the scriptures never teach this.

Neither are designed by God to change the TOTAL INABILITY of the fallen nature. The purpose of the law is to make it manifest. The purpose of the Gospel is to announce God's provision for salvation of sinners. However, it is the purpose of the Holy Spirit to deal with the fallen human nature according to God's eternal purpose of election.

The verse you harp on is Rom. 8:7 which doesn't even mention the gospel or grace.

I harp on Romans 8:7-9 and the only two possible conditions of mankind to be "in the flesh" or to be "in the Spirit." To be "in the flesh" is to be in the condition found in verse 7 as verse 8 plainly demands. The only solution to the condition described in verse 7 is not the gospel but the Spirit or to be "in the Spirit" which is regeneration. However, you don't like that option do you as that is the option described in 1 Thes. 1:4-5 which demands it is the Spirit that empowers the gospel and makes a difference rather than anything originating out of the fallen human nature.

Do you have any other verses which teach the insufficiency of the gospel in the face of the apparently overwhelming depraved nature of man? I guess its just too bad that God couldn't come up with a message that was powerful enough to enable lost men to respond?

There is no insufficiency in the gospel according to its purpose. The gospel is not purposed to save anyone, but is purpose to declare the GLAD TIDINGS that God has provided salvation in Christ for all who repent and believe. The purpose of the Spirit of God is to deal with the fallen nature of the elect and bring them to repentance and faith.

 

[Skandelon]

Biblicist,

You seem to believe that the law's purpose is virtually the same as the gospel's purpose:

The Law revealed that men are unable to attain righteousness by law through works.

The Gospel revealed that men are unable to attain righteousness by grace through faith.

So, both the law and the gospel accomplish the same purpose of teaching that righteousness just isn't attainable, right? Both are equally BAD NEWS, of things men just can't do?

So, in the same why that I believe the law points people to the gospel, you believe the law and gospel both point people to Calvinism (effectual, unconditional atonement/grace).

Is that accurate?

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist,

You seem to believe that the law's purpose is virtually the same as the gospel's purpose:

Why on earth do you keep repeating this when I have not only said no in black and white several times but clearly stated what I believe the purpose of the law is versus the purpose of the gospel?????? Do you think I am lying to you?

The Law revealed that men are unable to attain righteousness by law through works.

The Gospel revealed that men are unable to attain righteousness by grace through faith.

Again, you completely ignore my carefully worded explanation that I gave but you carefully CRAFTED your own explanation of my words in terms that promotes your own agenda! Can't be accident twice!!! So I will simply repeat my own words if you please:

Your argument is so worded above that it represents my position as one that believes the real issue between law and the gospel is salvation which is clearly not the issue being made by my position as I have never claimed the purpose of the law was to save anyone or that God's purpose of the law was to save anyone. The purpose of the law is to reveal the state of fallen man to be INCAPABLE of obedience to God and thus a sinner who only and continually violates the Law of God and thus IS by nature at enmity against God and is not subject to the Law of God and neither indeed can be (Rom. 8:7)and that is the condition of all who are "in the flesh" and that is why they cannot please God (Rom. 8:8). Therefore, it is impossible that salvation can originate through their own obedience because of their NATURE. That is the purpose of the Law.

The purpose of the gospel is to DECLARE/ANNOUNCE that God has provided salvation through the obedience of one who BY NATURE is sinless and can obey God's law and whose death can and does satisfy the eternal penalty of disobedience. However, it is not the purpose of the gospel to save every man that hears it or to deal with the fallen nature of man. That is the purpose and power of the Holy Spirit according to God's eternal purpose of election TO salvation.

If you cannot understand these words and how I clearly distinguish the puprpose of the law from the purpose of the gospel then I don't know how I can help you. Take the blinders of your own agenda off and simply read my words for what they clearly say and emphatically deny.

 

[Skandelon]

Biblicist, what about these conclusions is inaccurate?

The Law revealed that men are unable to attain righteousness by law through works.

The Gospel revealed that men are unable to attain righteousness by grace through faith.

Isn't that what you have been arguing? That the nature of man is equally unable to attain righteousness through either command? You even said that whether its a command to follow the law or a command to repent and believe the nature is the same, so it can't be attained. What specifically is wrong about the words above?

Doesn't the gospel reveal man's inability to attain righteousness too? Saying it's 'declarative' doesn't change that does it? The law was declarative too wasn't it?

You say, "Therefore, it is impossible that salvation can originate through their own obedience because of their NATURE. That is the purpose of the Law."

But isn't this also true of the gospel in your system? Doesn't the gospel reveal that salvation can't come through their obedience of its demands? I'm honestly not seeing how what I said has misrepresented you. I just paired it down to the basics.

 

[Winman]

Here is the problem with that line of reasoning. There is a difference in man's ability to hear a particular command (like thou shalt not steal) and obey it and his ability to fulfill the full demands of the law. So, what you are doing is presuming that because man can't fulfill the full demands of the law then he must equally be unable to fulfill any command of that law, which clearly isn't the case. So, of course we fall short of the full demands of keeping the law, because if we fail in any one point then we fall short, but that doesn't mean man isn't able to refrain from building a idol or shaving the hair on the side of his face, or whatever.

So, here is your logical construct:

1. Man cannot keep every demand of the law
2. Therefore man cannot keep any demands of the law
3. If man cannot keep any demands of the law then he cannot keep any demand at all.

Number 2 doesn't follow from number one because scripture never teaches that man can't keep any command, it only teaches they fall short if they even break one command.

And even if number 2 was validated as true, number 3 doesn't necessarily follow unless also independently validated by the text, because who is to say that the 'demand of grace' is equal in purpose and thus enabling power as the 'demand of law?'

This was a good post and agrees with my view. No man has ever met every demand of the law, all men have "come short" of the glory of God.

But that does not mean man cannot obey an individual command of the law. Even unregenerate men can tell the truth, or return a lost wallet.

This is precisely what the scriptures are saying when they say there is no man that doeth good, no not one. This is speaking of every demand of the law, of being 100% righteous. No man has ever done that except Jesus.

Calvinists take this verse and misinterpret it to mean that an unregenerate man cannot obey a single command. They argue that even when an unregenerate man tells the truth it is a sin.

This view makes a mockery of God's laws. You are just as much a sinner for telling the truth as you are for telling a lie.

Their view is the ol', You are darned if you do, and you are darned if you don't. Absurd.

Total Inability is false doctrine.

 

[Skandelon]

This was a good post

Thanks, maybe that's why it was ignored?

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist, what about these conclusions is inaccurate?

The Law revealed that men are unable to attain righteousness by law through works.

Because this statement is lacking, insufficient, and misleading without the full purpose and intent God had in giving the law. The Law does not merely reveal that men are unable BUT reveals WHY they are unable and that WHY is spelled out in Romans 8:7-9.

You want me to choose YOUR SELECTIVE EMPHASIS so that you can make me appear to oppose YOUR SELECTIVE EMPHASIS in your selectively worded contrast.

The Gospel revealed that men are unable to attain righteousness by grace through faith.

The gospel does reveal this every time it is rejected. Every true profession of faith will never claim salvation occurred by mere profession (although a profession will be included). Instead a true profession of salvation will have a detailed PERSONAL EXPERIENCE of what God did to them that brought them to this profession. Any confessing lacking that experience is a false profession.

For example, I was raised in church and made to go to church- evangelical Arminian Baptist church where the gospel was preached every Sunday. I did not like church or being in church, so I sat in the seat nearest the door so I could get out quick. One Sunday morning I was minding by own business, not in any way seeking God and completely oblivious to any relationship of the gospel to me. However, there is something I will never forget that Sunday morning because it was happening inside of me and I had no control over it. If I had control over it, it would not have been permitted becuase it made me feel guilty, bad, like a unstable internal bowl of jello, and I felt that my insides were exposed to the whole world. When God got through with me, I was convinced I was a sinner and was not only worthy of condemnation but was certainly going to hell and I knew for the first time in my life, I was conscience personally for the first time in my conscious experience that Jesus was the Son of God and only by repenting and trusting in him could I be saved from my sins which out of nowhere became like huge heavy weights upon my soul pressing me down into the mud. When God got through with me, nothing could keep me back from fleeing to Christ and trusting Him to save me from my sins, which I did. I did not need anyone to lead me in saying some words. I did not need to walk the isle. I did not need to say any public prayer. I did not go forward to be saved. I went forward because I met the Savior and he already convinced and convicted me of sins without any instrumental help at all. I don't even recall what the Pastor preached as I was totally caught up with what was going on inside of me. No preacher needed to convince me. No man needed to entice me, pursuade me, or offer me the gospel. The Holy Spirit confronted, convicted and convinced me.

After that PERSONAL EXPERIENCE with God or "experiential knowledge" (Jn. 17:3), no one had to make me go to church. No one had to pay me quarters to read or memorize scripture. No one had to convince me that sin was wrong. So nothing EXTERNAL was at work that Sunday morning in my salvation experience and so with Paul I say:

Gal. 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

No doubt circumcision was an EXTERNAL TEACHING AIDE designed to illustrate visibly the new birth and thus a form of gospel salvation in picture form. I did not respond to the preaching of the gospel that Sunday morning but went forward that night to profess I had been saved not in order to get saved.

 

[The Biblicist]

Sorry, but I never saw this post and that is why I never responded.

Here is the problem with that line of reasoning. There is a difference in man's ability to hear a particular command (like thou shalt not steal) and obey it and his ability to fulfill the full demands of the law.

In scriptures the word "hear" not merely means ability to receive but provide the proper response. So your argument is technically false.

So, what you are doing is presuming that because man can't fulfill the full demands of the law then he must equally be unable to fulfill any command of that law, which clearly isn't the case.

This shows you have a very superficial understanding of the Biblical view of sin. Sin has its root in HEART MOTIVE and that is why God looks upon the heart rather than the REACTIONS of the heart (although the reaction can be obvous sin as well) If the motive is wrong than ALL ATTITUDES, WORDS AND ACTIONS resulting from that motive is wrong - sin.

The ONLY proper motive is "whatsoever ye say or do...DO ALL FOR THE GLORY OF GOD" and that is why all men without exception have "come short of THE GLORY OF GOD."

Since "motive" underlies all REACTIONS or EVERYTHING you thinks, say or do then to violate one point of the law is to violate every point of the law as wrong motive is behnd every violation of the law.

Postively speaking the only right motive is a PRIORITIZED LOVE that has God first and others second.

No lost man, or all "in the flesh" DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT MOTIVE for anything they think, say or do and that is precisely why they must first have a NEW heart before they can imagine, think, say or do ANYTHING that pleases God.

 

[Skandelon]

Because this statement is lacking, insufficient, and misleading without the full purpose and intent God had in giving the law. The Law does not merely reveal that men are unable BUT reveals WHY they are unable and that WHY is spelled out in Romans 8:7-9.

Ok, so the first phrase wasn't so much incorrect as it was incomplete in your estimation, right?

So it is true, that from your perspective the law does reveal man's inability to attain righteousness by law through works, but in addition it reveals why they can't attain righteousness by law through works. And that reason is that man's nature is too corrupted to willingly do so, right?

Is that fair assessment?

The gospel does reveal this every time it is rejected.

So, again, its doesn't sound like you are disagreeing with my statement. You just felt the need to provide more clarity to it?

No man needed to entice me, pursuade me, or offer me the gospel. The Holy Spirit confronted, convicted and convinced me.

See, you seem to have an issue with the 'offer' of the gospel again here...that just concerns me.

I think you are separating the Holy Spirit from the means through which He works. I think even Calvinists would agree with this. I would say, and I think some Cals would agree with this, that the HS confronted, convicted and convinced though the persuasion, offer and enticements of the gospel and whoever proclaimed it. The difference is that I would believe all these means are able to be 'traded in for lies' and that these works of grace are in irresistible, but they are sufficient to enable a response.