Of course it will fly. The court can easily distinguish between something natural or anything regarded as a product of creation and thus an internal transformation is considered natural. However, drug induced rape is drug inducded rape and is punishable by law.
My advice to you is never become a lawyer, you will starve to death.
However, your analogy compares the final products and the regenerated man has an internal transformational desire that is without "repentance" or regret (2 Cor. 7:10) but the drug induced victim does not remain drugged but the final product is resentment and renewed resistance.
Makes no difference. The Koreans brainwashed our soldiers in the Korean War, when they came out of it they were willing communists. That doesn't make it right.
Patty Hearst was brainwashed to willingly participate in bank robberies. Do you think that was right?
You are simply trying to rationalize and justify what you intuitively know is wrong.
Let me put it this way. Your position requires a transformational change of nature in order to be transformed. If the fallen nature is by character resistant then your position requires the very change in nature that regeneration obtains but prior to regeneration.
Total Inability is the
question, you can never seem to grasp that. Non Calvinists do not believe a person has to be regenerated before they can be willing to believe. We believe a person can be reasoned with and convinced or persuaded to be willing to believe.
Acts 18:4 And he
reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and
persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
That argument has no basis in Scripture simply because to be "born of flesh" is to be "in the flesh." Even Jesus offered no third kind of man in John 3:6 but only two "of the flesh" or "of the Spirit" neither does Paul offer a THIRD type of man in Romans 8:8-9 but only two "in the flesh" or "in the Spirit." No such third kind of man exists.
And yet Jesus himself said, "the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak" clearly making a distinction between their spirit and their flesh.
And it absolutely has a basis in scripture, it IS scripture. Look up Matthew 26:41 in your Bible and see for yourself. It's there.
These are regenerated men. Even if you reject the indwelling of the Spirit at this point in time, you cannot reject regeneration by the Spirit as that is a Pre-cross necessity according to Christ (Jn. 3:3-10). Indeed, there can be no salvation of any sinner at any time apart from regeneration as the fundemental problem of sin is INTERNAL not something EXTERNAL to man involving a defective heart. This is clearly taught througout the OT scriptures and circumcision of the heart is an OT doctrine as much as a NT doctrine simply because there is NO DIFFERENT PROBLEM due to sin between sinners living prior to the cross than those living after the cross and there can only be ONE SOLUTION and it is an INTERNAL transformation of the heart which no human being can perform on himself.
I know they did not have the indwelling Spirit because John 7:39 said the Holy Spirit had not been given yet. Jesus also told his disciples in John chapter 14 that it was necessary that he go away so that he could send the Holy Spirit to them. Up to this time the Spirit only dwelt with them (which I believe is actually referring to Jesus himself) but afterward he would be "in you".
So I know they did not have the indwelling Spirit because the scriptures say so.
I would condemn the use by Sproul as much as by you as it is not an equitable comparison at all.
It is what it is, if you use drugs or supernatural power to cause an unwilling person to be willing you have violated that person.
God is not a hypocrite, God does not give us laws that he does not live by himself. God cannot just do "whatever" as many Reformed here argue. God is HOLY and therefore cannot do immoral things.
