Mr. Studier, how Ps 14 reads is largely immaterial. The psalmist wrote what he did in the historical context of his time; and Paul, within the context of his era and in the context of his argument, uses the psalm to suit his purposes. So, my question to you is this: To whom was he referring in Rom 3:10? Only the Jews? I totally disagree with that because Paul made his conclusion in verse 9: Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. So, I don't know how you parse from that comprehensive conclusion that what follows this verse is speaking only of the Jews.
Firstly, this discussion and a few others on this topic have prompted me to do some more updated reading regarding not only Romans, but Paul in particular. Within the past 50 years or so, there has been a substantial and growing amount of work being done in analyzing Paul's writings. Suffice it to say at the moment, that you and I and all of us are circulating in the same old arguments, mainly from 2 major views, and both of them could be wrong. They are most certainly resolving nothing. My awareness of this work and some things I have come to realize over the years normally keep me out of discussions like this. At some point I think most of us will come to realize we were wasting our time debating within the confines of what is an entirely failed understanding of the Text. Romans 1-4 and views of Justification are an important part of this updated work.
With that said, some mental exercise I guess:
I disagree that how Ps14 reads is immaterial. The fact is that Ps14 speaks of "the children of men," of fools who deny God's existence, and of God's people [who obviously do not deny God's existence]. What seems to be going on from the normal reading of Rom1-3 seems to coincide with what Ps14 speaks of.
I do not think Paul is speaking only of the Jews. But I do think (at this time and based upon our current reading of Paul) that his writing in this close context seems to be making a case in this section primarily against the Jews. And this is where it gets a bit dicey.
As I said above, I've decided to do some reading. One work I'm reading has a very interesting take on how much of Rom1-3 is actually rhetorical debate between Paul and an interlocutor. It's well identified that this interlocuter is part of this section of Romans. It's not well understood just how much Paul if saying from his own view of the Gospel and how much he may be dealing with a point of view of a Jew with a different gospel.
Some of what you and I and all of those involved in these TULIP discussions are opining about may well be totally misplaced as we wrongly consider parts of Rom1-4 as Paul's teaching when in fact it may be Paul responding to a false Gospel and proving it wrong.
What I believe is what I read clearly that I doubt will change as God's people who do get into the weeds (as you said you don't normally do) way deeper than any I've read on these forums, work out the interpretational problems that are repetitively debated. What I read is that both Jew and Gentiles are all under sin. Precisely what that means and includes and how men are justified by God according to the Text is still being debated and studied.
And once again....you keep on insisting that I have said that TU cannot understand any spiritual truth. That is not my position. And I even cited a parable in which the Christ-hating Pharisess clearly understood that Jesus was referring to them. When I say that TU "cannot" understand spiritual truth, I mean they cannot understand it sufficiently, substantially and essentially...because they have no heart for God. They don't want to have a deeper knowledge of God. And this is certainly the thrust of Romans 1 since men suppressed the truth, in their wickedness, that God revealed to them through his creation. They became FOOLISH in their speculations (thereby becoming fools!) and futile in their thinking because they did not want to retain God in their knowledge. This idea of having insufficient knowledge or understanding of spiritual truth can be found in 1Cor 2:8.
Your above statement I've bolded seems incomplete; "
sufficiently, substantially and essentially" for what? In your mind you may have clarified this in your next few statements, but I'd like to not have to speculate.
In response to what you did say, you do seem to me to be have a TD oriented presupposition that does compare to the basic premise of conventional TD - that the unregenerate "have no heart for God" and "don't want to have a deeper knowledge of God." From there you seem to flow with TULIP and think God must regenerate men so they can believe. And this is how TULIP works. Begin with conventional TD and end up with TULIP.
But this in part is where I do not flow with you re: Rom1-3. As I understand you and conventional TD, you want to make Rom1 about all unregenerate men with no exceptions. I have been explaining that I disagree with this. I don't think there is any warrant to lump all men in Adam I into God rejecters who "have no heart for God" and "don't want to have a deeper knowledge of God." I will also tell you that some of the work I'm reading looks like it's going to propose that this God rejecting portion of Rom1 may not be Paul's teaching but part of the interlocutor's gospel.
I'll also say that either I read you wrongly before or I confused you with someone else in this regard: Conventional TD or TI references (wrongly IMO] 1Cor2:14 to say that the unregenerate cannot understand spiritual things. You are saying TU can understand spiritual, but not "
sufficiently, substantially and essentially" (for something), which puts you in disagreement with conventional TD as I understand it.
Re: 1Cor2:8 I have no disagreement that it says the rulers in the era did not understand certain spiritual truth. My question re: how you're using it is related to all of the above. Do you think they were in any way the cause of their own lack of understanding or do you think they are just basic unregenerate men who had no ability to understand even if they got out of their own way and wanted to know more about the God they professed to know?
As far as how OT saints were saved, how do you think they were saved: Works, Faith, Both?
Did God have a hand in any OT saint's salvation or not? Or prior to the NC, was it every man for himself? But if God did have a part, what specifically was his role as "Savior"?
I think Faith has always been the issue for men. And I think Faith in God is inextricably related to obedience to God. But I don't want to get into this as a sideline discussion. I see Heb11 taking us all the way back to Abel and clearly correlating his acceptable sacrifice to his Faith. From there Hebrews runs us down through some other historical names and highlighting their Faith.
I guess the question for you in response is were they regenerate or unregenerate until Christ? You recently speculated this very question as I recall. It seems with your view of the TU, this speculation is logical. Maybe your premise is not correct.
1
