Now Yamil said that this definition of freewill is fabricated! Whereas we would maintain that it is a very necessary inference from these descriptions. So which descriptions are unscriptural?

What drivel are you talking about now?

JD, Let me be frank with you. You are a silly person pretending to have an education, but you betray yourself by your constant mindless waffling and your dumb posts on here.

Just the kind of ignorance one has come to expect from you.

"...When we speak of "free-will", we are talking about the power of contrary choice when it comes to the things of God. Are you really saying that a sinner, someone who is under the dominion of sin, who serves the god of this world, who lives to fulfill the lusts of the flesh and the corrupt and blinded mind, and who hates God, that such a person can in and of himself (i.e. without any spiritual influence) choose to walk the path of holiness, love God, obey God from the heart, offer acceptable spiritual worship etc.? A natural man, who cannot accept the things of God can of himself love and choose high and holy things?"

Did you do all this without any help from God when you were still a natural man, alienated from him? You found it in yourself to be holy, and love God when you were still dead in your sins and tresspasses?

I am going to address you once and once only, so listen up.

No one here will ever deny that our deeds and conduct are most important.

What we would strenously deny is that we are saved by them. Salvation is by grace through faith in the merits of a Savior. We are only saved because of what he did, and your "what he did 2000 years ago matters not" is a complete load of drivel.

I am not arguing against the fact that the will is impotent without the grace of God.

What the Reformed confessions consistently teach is that because of God's work in the heart, the sinner comes MOST FREELY, which your little ditty denies by saying that they come against their will.

As to which Erskine, it does not have any bearing on the discussion here, but having read both the Erskines, it does not sound like either of them to me.

Quote: "gentle guidance"

Firstly, I seem to recall your questioning whether that phrase was from Erskine. Are you now certain that it was from Erskine and that the quote is accurate? BTW, which Erskine - Ebenezer or Ralph?

Secondly, not matter how quickly the transition happens, the WCF [and I have to say other reformed confessions] are clear that sinners come MOST FREELY, not against their will.

One has to wonder how someone as judgemental as Dwayne thinks that he knows anything of mercy or grace?

You should familiarise yourself with your own standards viz. WCF

Chapter 10 para 1 reads:

"All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call,[1] by His Word and Spirit,[2] out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ;[3] enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God,[4] taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh;[5] RENEWING THEIR WILLS, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good,[6] and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ:[7] yet so, as THEY COME MOST FREELY, being made willing by His grace....

No hint here of being dragged in against one's will!!

Pride of knowledge is as dangerous as any other pride, do you not think? Your condescending manner when addressing Thurant is objectionable.

How do you distinguish the "historical present" from the "present"? Or is this just your gloss on the "present"? And why is there a shift from the past tense at all? Why not use the "present" tense throughout chapter 7 if the only desire was for effect?

I think we are in agreement.

I concur with you absolutely that the ministry of the word, since it is the Gospel which is the power of God unto salvation to all who believe, and our entreaties before the throne of grace that God would do that miraculous work of conversion that neither we nor the sinner can do, which are of utmost importance.

Glad to hear your testimony.. I have a very similar tale to tell. When still a very young Christian, I was invited by the pastor of a pentecostal church to a testimony evening where he wanted me to share mine. I duly got up and related my conversion experience. There was a youngish lady listening who was in tears who later came to speak with me and told me that she knew my younger sister and that she had been burdened for my family and had prayed for years, including spefically for me!! Naturally I was humbled, and it makes me think of that verse :

Romans 5:8
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

And Christ's people have a similar heart when they in love pray for the salvation of those that are yet sinners.

Blessings.

Thanks for your last post. You may have missed something I posted a while back:

6/25/07 4:10 PM WoW!
• Posted 48 hours ago
Survey:
God's Law-How Is It Commonly Taught?
616

"...When we speak of "free-will", we are talking about the power of contrary choice when it comes to the things of God. Are you really saying that a sinner, someone who is under the dominion of sin, who serves the god of this world, who lives to fulfill the lusts of the flesh and the corrupt and blinded mind, and who hates God, that such a person can in and of himself (i.e. without any spiritual influence) choose to walk the path of holiness, love God, obey God from the heart, offer acceptable spiritual worship etc.? A natural man, who cannot accept the things of God can of himself love and choose high and holy things?

***We are not talking about relative morality. We will even grant that someone who is a natural man can be morally even superior to some so called Christians. That is not the point at issue. The point at issue is does anyone who is still dead in sin and tresspasses have the ability to exercise any faculty towards spiritual things in order please God?***"

I stand corrected. I have looked at the entire passage again and you are quite right that Cornelius was not yet saved.

However, he appears to be an earnest seeker, having given up his paganism to worship the true God -- not the sort of person of whom it is said Romans 3:10 et seq. " As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that UNDERSTANDETH, there is none that SEEKETH AFTER God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is NONE that DOETH GOOD, no, not one. etc...."

And how did he come to be seeker but for the work of God in his heart?

So I still maintain that there is a big difference between Cornelius and sinners who have not known any work of grace in their lives.

What saith the Scripture? That we were by nature the children of wrath, even as others (Eph 2.3)!

You might want to read Acts 10 again.

e.g. "....Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached...."

If Cornelius feared God and worked righteousness, then he was already a saved individual! So I do not agree with your contention that he was not saved. The outpouring of the Spirit on him and his household was an important lesson for Peter because Peter was the one through him the gospel was first extended to the gentiles, and this also later helped convince the church at Jerusalem that what had happened on this occasion was the work of God.

Your thesis that somehow religious and/or moral people somehow please God is not tenable.

I can understand your aversion to theological schools of thought, but may I respectfully suggest that there is none who is free from some system of thought!

JD

Re: your question, because the text is simple enough.. read it again..

"....unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, [even to them] which stumble at the word, being disobedient: WHEREUNTO also **they were appointed.** (1 Pet 2:7-8)

The whereunto is referring to their stumbling and disobedience viz. they were appointed to that stumbling and disobedience... BUT we know this can have no part of your theology no matter how loudly the Scriptures scream this out.

I must confess I nearly fell off my chair laughing when I read your last. In fact I cried so much, I cannot remember the last time I laughed so hard.

Twisting my words now Mike. So you are bound to your precious system just as much as all the others that you point the finger at.

The verse said there is none that doeth good, meaning good absolutely- none that please God. The apostle is trying to make the point that all are guilty and equally in need of God's salvation.

But that statement cannot mean those who are made righteous by God, otherwise you would be saying that even the righteous cannot do good or please God, and that would be a pretty silly thing to say, since they are made unto good works, don't you think?

My point is that when dead in sins and tresspasses I had no ability to please God in anything, but matters have changed and it is God who made the difference, not any pretended free will!!

Thurant