It seems to me that if it were "quite clear" then we wouldn't disagree about the reading. If one tries to force one version of a reading and call it proof of doctrine, then that becomes an example of eisigesis. Meaning should flow naturally from the text, rather than being forced upon it.
You are asking me about my whole understanding of Romans 1:28. Seems to me that it is saying that when people are evil and do not care, God just gives them up to themselves.
And “themselves” become reprobate and without remedy.
Please explain the conclusion to the matter when, for a reprobate to be relieved of his condition, it would require someone higher than God to perform it; to influence his life to the point he would even "desire" it. They are indeed, without remedy, aren’t they?
Read also Heb 6:4-6 KJV in that light.
OMT:
Romans 1:28 KJV
(28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
That does not mean that an individual (or individuals) from that group of reprobate mind might not come face to face with themselves and seek God while he can still be found. At that point they would not longer be in that group called "reprobate."
If they belong to the reprobate group, there is no remedy. Ergo, they would not cry out to God, even as Esau cried out for God to repent and
God could not.
A little more:
Whose mind did he give them over to? Their own mind. They still have their own mind, and God gives them over to themselves.
Does that change anything in the condemning absoluteness of it all?
Why did he give them over? Because they "did not like" to retain God in their knowledge. Not because they couldn't, but because they chose not to.
In which case, "God gave them over"!
That's actually what it says if one looks closely enough.
Indeed, it does. Just as I reiterated.
