Dan Chapa:
Calvinists, how do you explain Moses’ comments on humbling an uncircumcised heart? Lev. 26:41 if then their uncircumcised heart is humbled and they make amends for their iniquity, 42 then I will remember my covenant with Jacob…

---

Jimmy Stephens:
Forgive the brief response (this is twitter). Here is a screenshot of my approach:

• (1) Per impossibile, Leviticus 26:41 teaches faith/repentance/etc precedes regeneration. Therefore, regeneration is merited. Works-righteousness follows, and salvation is not by grace alone.
• (2) Leviticus 26 parallels Deut 28-30, to my knowledge. Therefore, (a) 26:41 is possibly prophetic more than command or offer. (b) The language of Deut 30 is condescended-covenantal, meaning, God makes use of a human epistemic perspective rather than his omniscient knowledge of the subject’s heart. God could have simply judged people based on His divine knowledge of their moral status, but instead, he carries out his prosecution (or at least talks about it) as if he were a perfect human-prophet.
• (3) This is possibly a different use of the circumcision metaphor. It is not a necessary condition of Calvinist soteriology that circumcision only ever means, in its metaphoric or symbolic capacity, regenerateness or refers to regeneration. This might just be an exception to a general rule of thumb.
• (4) There are passages of Scripture which describe the same event from the two different perspectives of man’s agency and God’s agency. For example, Pharaoh’s heart is both hardened by God and himself, and this is the same event. Therefore, Leviticus 26:41 is possibly describing correlates of regeneration that is elsewhere (Deut 30:6) confirmed to be the work of God’s Holy Spirit.

In other words, the passage may presuppose a compatibilist picture of God’s Spirit ensuring the repentance via circumcision, though it is unmentioned.

• (5) Now to summarize, I admit that I don’t know exactly and cannot articulate in a nice paraphrase what Leviticus 26:41 means. However, because Calvinism is logically compatible with (at least) reasons 2-4, and non-Calvinism is logically incompatible with Christian soteriology simpliciter, the verse poses no threat to Calvinism, whatever it happens to mean.

---

Dan Chapa:
1 Regeneration is a gift, even if God requires faith 1st. 2a doesn’t address the issue. 2b God knows the heart, but we don’t. 3 It’s not just circumcision but “uncircumcised heart” 4 God and Pharaoh hardened Pharaoh’s heart at different times.

---

Jimmy Stephens:

• Re-(1): Calling payment a gift doesn’t make it so. I think you’d find it silly if your employer told you he has a gift (i.e. the money you’re paid) for you, he just needs you to show up and work. By definition, grace is unmerited. On your view it’s merited, plain and simple.
• Re-(2): You didn’t respond to (a). Perhaps you don’t understand the nature of my comment? As for (b), the O/NT make it clear believers are recognizable and Jesus even commands us to discern false teachers, which is impossible if we can’t tell hearts by actions.

Moreover, even if the Lord Jesus were the only one to successful recognize hearts, the language is still that of judging hearts by (primarily) an empirical recount of works, not clairvoyance or omniscience.

• Re: (3). Fair enough; I don’t know that “heart” necessitates regeneration talk, but I’m not a Bible scholar. I’ll concede that objection. Here’s an alternative, however. “if their uncircumcised hearts will be humbled”

Notice it does not say, “if their uncircumcised hearts will be humbled at the time their hearts are still uncircumcised.” It also does not say, “if their uncircumcised hearts will be humbled by their free will independent of the Spirit’s regeneration.“

This segues nicely into (4).

• Re: (4) – I doubt there is any reading of the Pharaoh-psychology texts in favor of God and Pharaoh hardening his heart at different times that doesn’t just beg the question in favor of LFW. Meanwhile, God prophecies His agency in the matter prior to any occurrences of hardening (Ex 4), and without specifying that any occurrences from Pharoah would precede His own.