Acts 17:26-27

You have not proved that that verse is what you say it is. Take it for what it says... for once read what scripture for what it says, not for what you want it to say. This verse says that man cannot seek God, how can you take that to mean anything different? You ask where the upright come from, God. Is that so hard to beliueve that God can do that and still be right?

And I will quote Romans 3 and it will not be a lie. At least that makes one more scripture than you have offered for "free will". Again, since it isn't in scripture. So where do you get it from?

Nice try, but I don't think you sold it to anyone... Please let me know where it is YOU get truth, since you tell me that you cannot look soley at the bible.

 

Can man seek God after being drawn by the Holy SPirit?

 

Since this is one of your favorite proof texts shall we start with this one? Remember this is the one you use to prove that man is not capable of seeking God.

Identify the specific words and or phraseology in this passage that says that man is not capable! Keep in mind that Capability and Will are not equals.

This passage in fact says that man is capable of seeking God, but that man doesn't, which is an exercise of human free will. The fact that man does not seek God indicates the capability exists by which man chooses to not do what is right

The capability to do good and to seek God exists, but the desire and the willingness to do so are absent. So is this passage a valid proof text for you point of view? Not hardly, because it contradicts what you say!

Think about it, man has the capability:
to turn away
to turn sour
to not do right, not a single one.

If man has the capability to shun God, then Man inherently has the capability to seek God! Capability is Capability. Will is Will Capability plus Will determines outcome. This passage speaks of man's will, not his capability.

Why would omniscient God who knows all need to look down from heaven to see if any are wise?

This passage is written by "the man after God's own heart" the "poet" who did not have the answers either! His poetic language cannot be the basis of "so important" a doctrine as the capability of man.