Choice "A", Vol 2

An unconscious person lacks ability and cannot make a choice.

I appreciate your honesty, at least you are consistent with your doctrine. I can respect that even if I disagree with it. You confirm that men are "unable" to cry out to Christ. They lack ability so they cannot make a choice.

Others argue that because an option is simply offered to someone that they have a choice. This is false. A blind man cannot choose to see even if you make that offer to him.

I disagree with Spurgeon here, and I believe I have seen sermons where he contradicts himself. He was very inconsistent in his doctrine.

Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Jesus does not force himself on anyone, he is not a criminal who breaks down your door. He patiently knocks and makes known to you that he wants to come in and sup with you. But we must freely and willingly open the door and invite him in. He has promised that to whoever opens the door, he will come in.

Spurgeon was wrong in this sermon.

 

All people do have a choice. When the gospel is presented they make a choices for the two options. The natural man will always choose to reject it. He cannot choose to accept it because he doesn't want to accept the gospel. When we are dealing with the question of choice and say "cannot choose something" the limitation is on the availability of the option. Here it's not the availability of the option, but the desires of our hearts. Before we are saved, we have no spiritual desires and thus have no desire to accept the gospel when presented to us.

So, when those say we can't choose Christ, they are referring to the desires that is limited. I don't want anyone to think that one would want to choose Christ but can't. Remember, it's "can" not not "may" not.

 

You don't get it, but Earth, Wind, and Fire does. He compared it to firemen entering a building and calling out to anyone inside, but the people are all unconscious. How can an unconscious person make a choice simply because you offer it to them?

You can argue all you want that people have a choice simply because a choice is offered them, but no one truly has choice unless they have the ability to choose any of the options offered.

I'll give you a choice right now. Reach your hand through your computer until it comes out at mine. If you reach out your left hand I will give you $50, if you reach out your right hand I will give you $100. I promise if you reach your hand through my computer monitor I will give you the money.

I just gave you a choice, which do you want, the $50, or the $100? Signify by reaching your hand through my computer.

 

Did you even read what I wrote? I just said you have an incorrect view here. But instead of addressing that, you just said you disagreed. You gave me a choice. The choice was to reach my hand through my computer. Now, what is limiting me from being able to choose that? My desires? No. It's a physical limitations. So guess what. I'm not going to choose to do that because it's impossible to do.

When the gospel is presented, you either accept or reject. That's the choice. the limitation is with you desire, not that the option is impossible. Reaching through my screen is impossible. Many have accepted the gospel.

Again, read what I write. Your post is obvious that you didn't read ALL of it.

 

But of course you would disagree with him...that's to be expected However I agree with him completely. I also have my own salvation testimony which is fairly recent (w/i the last two years ) to point to that mirrors ole Chucks story.

Look I dont expect either of us to agree with each other, but I dont question your sincerity in believing what you say....thats fine by me. What I object to is being consistently heranged about my particular belief system as if I'm a heretic. I do not do it to people & I would appreciate it not done to me.

 

What is the difference between a physical limitation and a spiritual limitation? On this thread alone some have compared an unregenerate man to a corpse, EWF compared unregenerate men to unconscious persons in a burning building. Can a corpse or an unconscious person make a choice?

In your view, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the unregenerate man to choose Christ, just as impossible as it is for you to reach through your computer.

What is the difference?

 

Right and unregenerate man cannot choose to come to Christ. But unregenerate man can choose to reject Christ. The difference with the physical example(like the burning building) is that when one is unconscious, he cannot make any choices at all. He has no "will" at that point. An unregenerate person has a will. He can make choices. But he will never make the choice to come to Christ. He has no desire to.

 

You once again contradict yourself by saying a person has choices, but then say a person's will is limited by his desires.

This is what I have been saying repeatedly, your arguments are contradictory and cannot be true, but you cannot seem to grasp that.

You easily understood why you could not make a choice because of physical limitation, but completely ignore that in your view the will is limited by a person's desires.

Again, what is the difference?

 

how is that a contradiction? A Choice is where there are two options. A person is presented with the gospel and has a choice to reject or accept. Because unregenerate man has no desire to accept, he always chooses to reject.

the reason the physical person has no choice is because he has no will. He is unconscious and cannot make any choices at all. An unregenerate person has a will(agree?) and therefore can make choices.

 

I don't know how to make it any clearer, but I believe EWFs analogy very accurate. It is like firemen entering a burning building and calling out to offer help to whoever answers, but the victims cannot answer because they are unconscious. They cannot make a choice because they have no ability to do so.

Total Depravity is just the same in your view. A man's will is limited by his desires. He is just like an unconscious person, he cannot answer. He has no options whatsoever.

If those men in the fire were conscious, they could choose whether to accept the fireman's offer of assistance or choose to try to save themselves of their own effort.

Likewise, if an unregenerate man could possibly have a good desire, then he could choose either to let Christ save him, or choose to attempt to save himself.

You must have the ability to choose between two or more options to have a choice. If you do not have ability, you cannot make a choice.

This is far less complicated than you are making it. As I said before it is like asking a blind man to choose between seeing or not seeing. He cannot choose to see. But a seeing man can choose between looking and seeing, or he can close his eyes and not see. Because he has ability, he has choice, the blind man doesn't.

 

a choice by definition is when there are two possibilities. When outside circumstances prevent you from making a choice, then you have no choice. (example of being unconscious...you have no will). In total depravity, you are limited by internal circumstances(ie. your sinful nature). If you want to say that it's not a choice, then I'm not going to keep debating over a term. My point is simply that a person that is unregenerate isn't staying unsaved against his will. When one say that a person has no choice, it tends to imply that a person is having to do something against his will. In this case, that isn't true. Nobody is unsaved against their will.

understand now?

 

Regenerating

We are being regenerated by the word of God through Jesus. Who word is Spirit and life, which is not His own but the Father who sent Him.

That word does not give us one choice it places before us two roads to believe in Jesus and be saved or continue down the road to destruction unbelief.

Through the words of Jesus God places before us life and death so chose life and live.

All of authority has been given to Jesus and He has given us the word of life to bring about more disciple's doing the same thing to fill the Earth, they will know us because we love each other.

 

What I THINK he is saying is that as a race of people we have incapacitated ourselves by dint of our sins from the beginning. Now you might argue that it was not us who 1st sinned but......

 

Doesn't matter what he is saying, reality is what matters. He says everyone is free to make a choice, and at the same time is enslaved and can only choose against God. You can't be free and a slave, that is a contradiction.

 

Please don't say things I didn't say. I said you are free to make any choice you want, not free to make any choice. Obviously, you don't want to hear what I'm saying. This is true in all parts of life. We are free to choose things in accordance to our nature(desires). No one desires Christ, so we choose to reject Christ. A choice by definition is when we have two options. Here we have the option of acceptance and the option of rejection. Two options. Because we are slaves to our sin(John 8:34) and dead in our sins (Ephesians 2:1) and don't seek after God (Romans 3:11) we will always choose to reject the gospel.

 

That sounds cute, as you divert the argument from will to desire or want. But if your wants and desires are not free, then neither is your will.

That the unregenerate can desire or want to be saved is shown by the Philipian jailer. He was not regenerate as he had not believed (and you have agreed in the past that faith and regeneration occur simultaneously), and yet he deeply desired (and therefore willed in your view) to be saved.

And we know he had not believed because his question revealed he had no knowledge of what was required to be saved. Only after Paul revealed to him that he must believe and preached Jesus Christ to him could he do so.

So, you have an example from the scriptures showing an unregenerate man desiring and willing to be saved.

 

duh! I've only said that about a dozen times. And I'm not sure what's "cute" about it. I'm not diverting anything at all. i've stated very consistantly that man is free to choose what he wants. The limiter is in his desires. Man is not free to choose what he doesn't want.

There is a difference(as was pointed out to you already) in wanting to be saved from damnation and wanting to come to Christ. (btw, the word "will" here means desire and want in case you were confused.

again, doesn't address the point. There is a difference of wanting to be saved from damnation and wanting to come to Christ. And example of this is in Matthew 19 where we have the rich young man wanting eternal life, but refused to give up his posessions and believe in Jesus.

 

This is pure nonsense. The rich ruler did have the desire to be saved, and therefore did have a choice of accepting or refusing Christ. The fact that he did not trust Christ does not prove he couldn't. This is the great fallacy of the Calvinist argument.

The Philipian jailer had a desire to be saved and therefore could make a choice for or against Christ and be saved. He made the right choice and believed on Jesus.

There is nothing in scripture to support that God showed a special grace to the Philipian jailer that he did not show to the rich ruler. If so, show it.

Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men.

All men are shown the same grace, the grace that brings salvation.

And as for being cute, isn't a person's desires his will?

Look up the origin of the word will in a dictionary, it means "to wish". What you wish or desire IS what you will.

You say the will is free but the desires are limited, this is a contradiction. You redefine words to make your theology work.

 

not worth replying if you are going to start your statement like that. Again, you failed to read what I wrote and made statements that were opposite to what I said.

never said he didn't. I said

aka... wanting to be saved. but remember I made another statement that you failed to address. you instead made a statement about mine that wasn't accurate.

again, yes. That's EXACTLY what I said. Again, please read what am writing. You are a better reader than this.

NO!!!!! It's not free. remember when I said this?

How do you get that the will(desires) are free when I said that it's limited? Did you even read it?

please be honest with my words

 

If then man's will is not free, then he has no choice because he has no ability and therefore no option.

You must have an option and ability to choose.

Can a corpse choose? Why not?

But in your view, if I offer a dead corpse the option of having steak or chicken for dinner he has choice. A child would know better.

And this is exactly how many Calvinists describe the unregenerate man concerning spiritual matters, as a corpse.

A corpse cannot have a choice, no matter how much you want it to be true.