You keep equivocating. Basically all of your doctrinal errors are, at root, errors of equivocation. For example, “belief” does not mean “creed”. A creed is a formal statement of religious belief. Similarly, in what sense do you assert that the object of faith is infinite? In the qualitative sense? Then your consequent assertion that it is beyond the grasp of finite minds is false. In the quantitative sense? Then it is necessarily and always beyond the grasp of finite minds, and impossible. But the object of faith is the person and work of Christ, so the notion is absurd to begin with. In the same vein, you flagrantly misuse the two verses you cite; they are not referring in any way to epistemological or ontological issues surrounding faith. And finally, no, faith is not a leap in the dark, and reason does not leave us at the point of justification. In fact, Christ is the very reason of God (Greek: logos), and the exemplar (founder and perfecter) of the faith by which we are justified.

Regards,
Bnonn

The things which we must “believe unto salvation” [...] come to us in the gospel as a set of facts which we are told we must believe to be saved, and it is possible for both the unregenerated and the regenerated to believe these things with a purely mental assent without faith.

This being the case, since it is belief on which salvation is predicated, your view entails that the unregenerate man can believe and be saved. This, of course, is false: salvation is by faith. Because you drive an artificial wedge between belief and faith, you are led to this erroneous conclusion. Again, I think you’d have to explain what you think faith is. If it isn’t a mental assent to certain facts, then what is it?

even if the reason is restored to the pre-Fall regenerated state.

I don’t believe that the condition of the regenerated believer is equivalent to the condition of original man.

even Adam, in an unfallen state, lacked the faith to believe God, and he believed the woman and the serpent instead.

What does this sentence even mean? It’s either incoherent or tautologous to say someone “lacks the faith to believe God”—it’s the equivalent to saying he “lacks the belief to believe God” or “lacks the faith to have faith in God”. It sounds like you think faith is some kind of bestowed faculty by which we believe. Of course, that is manifestly not what faith means in the Bible. Faith is itself belief (Greek: pistis)—that is why we “believe unto salvation”, given that “salvation is by faith”. Refer to Crosswalk, ‘pistis’:

1. conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man’s relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it

a. relating to God
i. the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ

b. relating to Christ
i. a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God

c. the religious beliefs of Christians

d. belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same

2. fidelity, faithfulness

a. the character of one who can be relied on

Regards,
Bnonn

The things which we must “believe unto salvation” (that Christ is God the Son, and that he died and rose again) come to us in the gospel as a set of facts which we are told we must believe to be saved, and it is possible for both the unregenerated and the regenerated to believe these things with a purely mental assent without faith. But only when God takes the initiative and bestows the supernatural gift of faith can a believer “capture” grace. Until that moment, grace escapes all human reason, even if the reason is restored to the pre-Fall regenerated state. Because even Adam, in an unfallen state, lacked the faith to believe God, and he believed the woman and the serpent instead.

HEB 11:1 “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

Since the things which are hoped for are not seen, it is impossible for man, using his natural faculties, to attain to the sure belief in divinely revealed truths which is faith. Not even simple belief rises to the level of faith, which is so sure that the author of Hebrews calls it “substance”. Faith is a surety so certain that as Hebrews 11:1 teaches, faith itself is the evidence of its sole source, which is the invisible God. Since God is the sole source of this faith, only he may initiate the grace of conversion, which escapes our knowledge and can only be understood by faith.

So, all people are naturally able, by merit of being made in God’s image with the faculty of choice, to believe in the gospel. In the same way, all people are naturally able to obey God’s law—for the same reason. This is why I used that analogy: since all people are naturally able, but morally unable, to obey God’s law; yet God is not insincere in giving the law, and the law itself is good: so in the same way all people are naturally able, but morally unable (besides regeneration), to believe unto salvation; yet God is not insincere in offering them the gospel, and the gospel itself is good.

Hope this helps;
regards,
Bnonn

Here is the problem: “thus it is really for all men, and all men really can accept it. Recall that every man has a natural ability to believe unto salvation; it is only his sin which prevents him—just as every man has a natural ability to obey the law.”

How do we, born with a sin nature, have the natural ability to repent or keep the law? Where does that natural ability lie in a man born totally depraved?

1. Because that is the nature of federal headship. Christ can’t not represent all mankind.
2. Because God genuinely wishes to offer the atonement to all sincerely; meaning that it is benevolently extended with a real, but contingent desire that it be accepted; thus it is really for all men, and all men really can accept it. Recall that every man has a natural ability to believe unto salvation; it is only his sin which prevents him—just as every man has a natural ability to obey the law. He is not held less accountable, or the law less good, in the event that he fails. Neither, then, should God be held less good because the reprobate despise his overtures.
3. Apropos (2), God wishes to evidence the bountiless extent of his benevolence and mercy.
4. The atonement doesn’t merely purchase eternal redemption, but also vindicates God’s justice in even granting not only a temporary reprieve upon sinners, but even many temporary blessings, rather than destroying them immediately. Thus, it is the foundation for common grace.

Although I tend to be critical of Dabney for taking the anthropomorphism of God too far, he does make good points as in comment #4 above. If he makes God too human, at least this provides a counter-balance to many other Calvinist theologians who make God too inhuman.

Regards,
Bnonn