How is a sinner enslaved by sin able to exercise a free will to either accept or reject God, yet a freed sinner can't exercise a free will, seeing they are free?
It is very simple, you are beginning with a false premise,
which is that the natural man has an ability within him to comprehend the spiritual things of God, the Gospel topping the list in relevant revelation.
Salvation is wholly the work of Holy God.
It is initiated through the Ministry of the Holy Spirit Who began the Ministry of the Comforter (as contrasted with the external ministry of empowerment in the Old Testament) whereby natural man is enlightened to his condition. The Holy Spirit convicts of sin, righteousness, and judgment, and just like every other Age in history, man responds.
When God told Adam not to eat of the Tree of the Fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, was Adam subject to punishment or reward...before knowing God's will?
The caricatures of Arminian and Calvinistic teachings which both do a disservice to the Sovereignty and Holiness of God neglect to calculate a very basic Bible Principle: God always has, and always will...judge man according to the response to the revelation they have been provided.
The punishments differ, as in the Old Testament sin resulted in physical death. Probably one of the clearest pictures of that is the death of David's baby. Another would be most of those who were redeemed out of Egypt. Another would be Samson.
The only "free will" any man will ever exercise in regards to salvation is to reject the will of God. In this Age it is rejecting the Ministry of the Comforter Who glorifies Christ and brings understanding to the natural mind.
When one responds favorably, this could be viewed as much a choice as grasping a hand that seeks to pull a drowning victim out of the water.
When is the last time someone claimed to have saved themselves from drowning by grabbing that hand?
I guess the first English Baptists didn't have the same Bible that the later Particular Baptists had then. You know, the Bible written in the first century by the apostles of Jesus.
Translations can impact theology, to be sure. Then couple that with man's tradition and there you go: recipe for disaster.
We have no such excuse, as Bible Scholarship in large part has recovered, they say, 99.99% of Scripture.
And even it had not, those who had particular translations, whether it was that meticulously copied by Scribes, the LXX, the Latin Vulgate, or the King James Version...every individual that studied those translations were not bereft of God Himself enlightening the texts for those diligently and sincerely seeking to do His will.
And each of us, going back to the first reading of the Law, will be judged according to our response to that revelation. No-one will reasonably tell God "but you planted me in a fellowship that had it wrong! It's your fault!"
That is an absolute caricature of the Sovereign God. To think He would reveal Himself through His Word then hide that revelation from those seeking to obey.
Caricature.
Yes, but neither you nor anyone else here would want to know them. I can with certainty predict the result, even though it would be based on misunderstanding of my position. I don't want to subject myself to that -- already have on other forums and don't want to have it repeated here.
I wouldn't mind hearing them. Why do you think I asked?
My guess is that you have embraced something unorthodox and are ashamed to admit it, because your heart is troubled that you might have it wrong.
Try me out.
Could I guess and say you have embraced the latest rage in Modern Christendom?
That unbelievers will not suffer eternal torment in Hell?
Just a guess, but if it is, can I tell you that I am familiar with the view, and though I reject it, I also would treat it as any other doctrinal issue. Doctrinally. lol
Whatever it is, is it kosher with the Baptists you have just used as a positive reference?
God bless.