@Red Baker,
@brightfame52,
@Studyman
Red — thank you for giving me time with my family.
Friends, since I was mentioned in posts to you yesterday (including two newer posts from Red that I had not yet responded to), I will respond to all of that here in one reply.
Let me clarify once—carefully and plainly—what I am, and am not, saying, because much of the response to me has been aimed at positions I have explicitly denied.
I have never argued that faith is meritorious.
I have never argued that the flesh produces faith apart from the Spirit.
I have never argued that regeneration is earned, conditioned upon, or caused by human effort.
The real disagreement here is not whether faith is Spirit-enabled. We agree that it is.
The disagreement is whether Scripture presents faith as the God-ordained means by which God brings sinners to salvation, or merely as a post-regeneration diagnostic limited only to those already alive.
That distinction matters, because Paul’s argument depends on it.
In Romans 1:16, Paul is explaining why he openly preaches the gospel: because the gospel
is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes. The text does not say the gospel becomes powerful only after regeneration; it identifies the gospel itself as God’s saving instrument. To reverse that order collapses Paul’s stated purpose for preaching.
Romans 1–3 is addressed to a mixed audience—Jews and Gentiles alike—under sin. While the letter is written to the saints in Rome, Paul unmistakably reasons about unbelief, guilt, accountability, and justification before God. Scripture routinely addresses believers while speaking
to and about the unregenerate. Audience designation does not restrict the scope of Paul’s argument.
When Paul says in Romans 1:17 that righteousness is revealed “from faith to faith,” he is not describing a transfer of truth between already-regenerate people. He later explains this very principle in Romans 4 by appealing to Abraham—who believed God while ungodly. Faith is presented there not as a mere fruit of prior life, but as the means through which justification is received.
Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 1, Paul does not say the gospel is foolishness only until regeneration occurs. He says it is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. The same preached message divides hearers; it does not wait for regeneration before functioning as God’s saving power.
Yes, Scripture teaches that the natural man cannot please God (Rom. 8:7–8). That truth does not negate the biblical teaching that faith comes by hearing, nor does it require redefining every call to believe as something addressed only to the already regenerate. Scripture holds both together without contradiction.
I also want to be clear about something else: disagreeing on these points does not place someone “under a curse,” aligned with pride, or echoing the serpent. Those kinds of charges do not clarify doctrine; they obscure it. The issue before us is exegetical, not personal.
If faith is only a post-regeneration evidence and never the God-appointed means by which sinners are brought to salvation, then Paul’s missionary labors, his reasoning with unbelieving Jews and Gentiles, and his insistence that the gospel confronts unbelief become difficult to explain on Paul’s own terms.
My appeal is simple: let Paul’s argument stand as he presents it. Let Scripture define the relationship between gospel, faith, and salvation, rather than forcing every text into a single theological category.
That is all I am contending for—and nothing more.
And one final comment, Red: I trust by now you can see that I am not angry, and I am not running away from these issues. I am simply asking that they be handled from the text itself.