In reply to:[color:"blue"]Let's look at this statement a little more logically. You state that God gave mankind the ability to choose by their own free will because they chose Him. How did they choose Him by their own free will before God graciously gave that to them? That is what is called petitio principi, or, circular reasoning. It's like saying that the smurf is blue because it is blue. Not a valid point/argument.
They did not choose him before God graciously gave him the gift. They chose him after he gave them the gift of free will so it was always there to begin with to choose him and it was out of mercy through the redemptive design that He gave them an easier way out than the hardness of the law. Even some men were saved under the hardness of the law though so few. Do you see how it is no circular reasoning now?
In reply to:[color:"blue"] The sinful nature is the apex of the argument. If a person is sinful, by nature, then the ability to choose good, and, therefore, choose God, does not exist. the nature of a person is the underlying cause of everything a person does. If the underlying cause of a person choosing God is sinful... Do you see what I'm getting at? A sinful nature does not choose God. It is absurd to think that someone chose God sinfully, and then God chose him/her back. What is needed for salvation is a new heart (Ezek. 36:26,7), a resurrection from the dead (Eph. 2), a birth from non-existence into existence (John 3), etc.
Not true, just because the sinful nature exist does not mean it wins all the time. For man still retains something from the fall in his conscience likely because it can still know some good and evil however dead and insensitive to things of God. This is very profound to know this while man's intuition is dead and communion is dead the knowledge in the conscience is retained at least on some level. This is a more profound and exacting view of our condition today. So the sinful nature is not all of everything for the conscience still has something retained however shallow it is, it is enough with man's free will through the redemptive design to choose God unto salvation by His grace. All these things, new birth and all come after man accepts Christ, not before, that is why it is a redemptive design to lead man out without touching his being his willk, drawing always but not touching for the final decision is left up to man to come or not to come. Sinful nature is not the apex of the argument. It is the apex of the accumalation of garbage of mistaken assumptions is all it is.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]He draws all, not all are drawable, He cannot, then, draw the undrawable, therefore he doesn't draw all. Mass confusion! I would encourage you to think over everything that is being posted to you by the others on this board. There is a wealth of wisdom and knowledge from years and years of hard living, and study-time that totals definitely to more hours than I have even been alive. Most importantly, though return to the Scripture that is being quoted, true knowledge comes from above! May God allow us all to learn from this discussion.
He does not draw all because it is unrighteous of him to draw that which does not accept Him but He does all He can do to allow all willingly if all willing allow. Whether all willingly draw unto is out of God's righteous hands to tamper with past what is righteous, so here he stops any imingement. I would expect nothing less in a righteous God. Mass confusion does not exist at all. Do you see? I am clear, believe me. Are you? If so then we both worship a different Christ and a different God. Think that through.
