Freedom of the Will

[Van]

Folks, note the serial posts of Calvinists, all off topic, all denying scripture, all finding fault about word choice rather than the topic. This is all they have folks, shuck and jive. Behold the fruit of Calvinism!

Jonathan Edwards presents mistaken doctrine in his "Freedom of the Will." Moral inability is demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13 which has men demonstrating the moral ability to be entering heaven.

 

[agedman]

Van,

You haven't read what Edwards wrote - yet you claim authority to dispute his writing. That in itself is not even close to scholarly.

The Scripture you attempt to use to support your claim has been soundly refuted more than once on the BB as being misapplied to your desire.

Repeating your posts is not supporting your claim, either.

Until you read what he wrote, post what he wrote with which you disagree, and show systematic argument how you disagree, you have not addressed the issue.

Edwards does that throughout his work. He takes the writing of others and shows how they are correct or how they are wrong.

I would think that in particular you would be interested to see how consistent Edwards is in discerning a position and then showing the strength or the limited view from that position.

Freedom of the Will can be located here in pdf format.

 

[Van]

Denial and falsehood

Van,

You haven't read what Edwards wrote - yet you claim authority to dispute his writing. That in itself is not even close to scholarly.

I read parts of Freedom of the Will and provided the quotation which I compared with Matthew 23:13.

The Scripture you attempt to use to support your claim has been soundly refuted more than once on the BB as being misapplied to your desire.

Typical Calvinist claim without reference. Just read where men had the moral ability to be entering heaven folks. Edwards either did not know scripture or was willing to ignore it, in a prideful effort to support man-made doctrine.

Until you read what he wrote, post what he wrote with which you disagree, and show systematic argument how you disagree, you have not addressed the issue.

More twaddle from Calvinist acolytes. I read some of Freedom of the Will. I quoted the claim of Edwards which is unscriptural. And I compared it with scripture. Pretty systematic.

In a nutshell folks, Edwards claims the fall resulted in our lack of inclination to seek God and trust in Christ. However, scripture has fallen men seeking God and trusting to varying degrees in Christ, i.e. the four soils of Matthew 13.

 

[agedman]

I read parts of Freedom of the Will and provided the quotation which I compared with Matthew 23:13.

Typical Calvinist claim without reference. Just read where men had the moral ability to be entering heaven folks. Edwards either did not know scripture or was willing to ignore it, in a prideful effort to support man-made doctrine.

More twaddle from Calvinist acolytes. I read some of Freedom of the Will. I quoted the claim of Edwards which is unscriptural. And I compared it with scripture. Pretty systematic.

In a nutshell folks, Edwards claims the fall resulted in our lack of inclination to seek God and trust in Christ. However, scripture has fallen men seeking God and trusting to varying degrees in Christ, i.e. the four soils of Matthew 13.

Van, you read "part of it" but because you did not read it all, you still determine to post against it.

Frankly, you don't know what you are posting about.

This isn't "Calvinism" versus your view, this is about someone who assumes a position and then argues with what he knows little or nothing about.

Be the scholar you claim to be.

This thread is about what Jonathan Edwards wrote, not Calvinism.

Perhaps you do not have the desire to read with comprehension what Edwards wrote - fine - then don't argue against his work.

Your claim that you refuted Edwards with one verse taken out of context which has been refuted as misapplied by more than one on the board does not constitute support for your claim that "Edwards is unscriptural."


Here is just a partial list of what Edwards used to support his writing.

Genesis
1:26; 1:27; 3:15; 6:6; 7:4; 9:6; 9:30; 11:9,15; 15:13; 15:14; 15:16; 22:16; 22:17
Exodus
3:14; 3:19,21
Numbers
23:19
Deuteronomy
32:21
Judges
9:15-20
1 Samuel
2:2; 15:11; 15:29;22
2 Samuel
12:11; 12:12; 23:5; 23:5
1 Kings
11:11-13; 13:1-6; 13:32; 14; 16:9-13; 16:20; 21:20-22
2 Kings
8:12; 15:27; 20:17-19, 22; 22:15-20
2 Chronicles
13:5, 6; 13:18; 36:21; 36:22; 36:23
Ezra
1:1-4
Job
23:13,14; 42:2
Psalms
2:1, 2, 6, 7; 10:4, 18:22; 22:1, 6, 7; 33:10,11; 40:6, 7, 8; 45:3, 4, 7; 45:4,7; 69:4; 69:8; 69:19; 69:20; 72:11; 72:17; 81:12; 89:3; 89:4; 89:34-36;110
Proverbs
19:21
Ecclesiastes
3:14
Isaiah
1; 3:13-15; 6:9-11; 8:14; 8:15; 8:16; 11:1; 11:6; 11:7; 11:13; 14:27; 15; 28:16; 40:8; 40:14; 41:22-26; 42:21; 43:1-4; 43:9; 43:10; 44:8; 44:28; 45:21; 45:22-25; 46:10; 47; 48:3; 48:4-8; 48:14; 49:4-7; 49:5; 49:6; 49:8; 49:9; 49:15; 50:5; 50:6; 50:6; 51:4-8; 52:13; 53:1-3; 53:9; 53:10; 53:10-12; 54:9; 54:10; 55:4; 62:18; 65:13;
Jeremiah
1:18; 1:19; 4:1; 5:1; 7:1-7; 7:27-29; 11:1-6; 17:24-27; 23:5; 23:6; 25:1-7; 25:11; 25:12;
25:14; 26:1-8; 26:13; 29:10; 29:11; 29:12; 29:13; 29:14; 31:8; 31:9; 31:18-31; 31:35-40;
32:6-15; 32:41-44; 33:8; 33:15; 33:20; 33:21; 33:24-26; 33:25; 33:26; 38:17; 38:18; 44:26;
44:26; 44:27; 50:4; 50:5; 51:39; 51:57;

And the list goes on and on. It can be found in the index linked here: Freedom of the Will.

The BB won't let me post the rest of the list - it is far too long exceeding the number allowed bits.

He covers the entire Old and New Testament (unless I mistakenly didn't recall one of the Biblical books). And does so using the context of the Scriptures comparing Scriptures with Scriptures.

So, you stack one verse against Edwards and expect your argument to even be taken seriously?

You have offered a total lack of scholarly effort.

 

[Van]

Since Agedman posts documented falsehoods, and seems not to be able to address "moral inability" and given it has been demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13, why did he post an avalanche of scriptures?

Folks, there is absolutely no support in scripture for total spiritual inability, none, zip, nada.

The entire bible, Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21 demonstrates "moral inability" is mistaken doctrine. Note that this includes all of the scriptures listed mistakenly by Agedman.

 

[agedman]

Since Agedman posts documented falsehoods, and seems not to be able to address "moral inability" and given it has been demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13, why did he post an avalanche of scriptures?

Folks, there is absolutely no support in scripture for total spiritual inability, none, zip, nada.

The entire bible, Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21 demonstrates "moral inability" is mistaken doctrine. Note that this includes all of the scriptures listed mistakenly by Agedman.

Because Van is like a one trick pony on this matter, I will take time (again) to explain to the folks how Matthew 23:13 does not refute Edwards.

Here is the verse in context:

13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. 14 [Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation.]
15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
16 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple is obligated.’ 17 You fools and blind men! Which is more important, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold? 18 And, ‘Whoever swears by the altar, that is nothing, but whoever swears by the offering on it, he is obligated.’ 19 You blind men, which is more important, the offering, or the altar that sanctifies the offering? 20 Therefore, whoever swears by the altar, swears both by the altar and by everything on it. 21 And whoever swears by the temple, swears both by the temple and by Him who dwells within it. 22 And whoever swears by heaven, swears both by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it.
23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence. 26 You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also.
27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. 28 So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 and say, ‘If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. 33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?
34 “Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, 35 so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
​

One can see that the Lord Jesus Christ is pronouncing woe upon the religious righteous rulers who had the specific appointment by God to direct the people in all matters of the Law and the prophets.

The Lord Jesus Christ is also pronouncing judgment upon them; in effect, an end to the mode of worship in which was instituted as sacrifice.

It is in that context that Matthew 23:13 is placed as the first statement.

Van would take the verse as folks have innate "moral ability" to shut up heaven and prevent folks from entering. But that is no more valid than stating the same were all blind for verse 16 states they were blind.

Christ in Matthew 6 has stated that worry does not add a single hour to life. If worry - which wears moment by moment upon the very heart of a person - cannot add an hour of life, how is it even possible to compare the power of humankind to actually shut up eternity by their volition.

Therefore, how is one to approach Matthew 23:13?

This specific part of Matthew is demonstrating how those who would teach traditions and not the Scriptures, those who would demand works rather than proclaim the truth of the Messiah, and those who would lay standards and outward appearance above the condition of the heart have the judgment of God upon them. They are guilty of "all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar."

The verse is not stating that such as these murderers had such power that they actually determined who could and couldn't enter heaven. Rather showing that an end to their administration was upon them.

Their rejection of the truth was demonstrated with all manner of evil (think Saul of Tarsus), stirring up the crowds to cry out, "Crucify Him," and many lies (tell them the body was stolen). Do not some continue in such even to this day? Are we still not surrounded by "blind guides?"

Such are not friends of the kingdom of heaven, nor of the Messiah, nor of the Gospel. They have nor had no power to do as Van would ascribe than any heathen of this day. They are "whited sepulchers" full of "dead bones."

There power lay (from the day of the tabernacle until the destruction of Jerusalem) in the position they held as the appointed authority over the Scriptures (Law and Prophets), and the civil social laws. It is THAT authority in which Christ is referring. They would control the flow of the Scriptures, the conditions of sacrifices, and other ministrations which when followed according to God's purpose portrayed the Messiah. Because these things were perverted by power and injustice, the Scriptures were not taught correctly, the sacrifices were self serving, and the ministrations were pointing to the glorification of humankind rather than the Messiah.

Throughout the Scriptures, God is shown as completely capable to turning hearts and minds as He desires - despite the evil intent of humankind.

Then the REAL question is can desperately deceitful folks prevent God?

According to Van's view - such would be the case, that evil unregenerate hearts have the authority over the very God of Heaven. He who designed, formed and keeps all things, in Van's view, must submit to the mere whim of humankind. In Van's view, Christ does not have "all power" given to Him in "heaven and earth." He does not stand and move in the middle of the lamp stands. He does not hold in His right hand the seven stars, and Word of God does not proceed from his mouth as a sharp two-edged sword; and he certainly does not have the keys of death and of Hades. Van's view would ascribe all authority to the moral ability of humankind - obliging the Messiah to second place or perhaps best of show.

What Van supposes is support for his view is nothing but illusion and trickery.

 

[Yeshua1]

Since Agedman posts documented falsehoods, and seems not to be able to address "moral inability" and given it has been demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13, why did he post an avalanche of scriptures?

Folks, there is absolutely no support in scripture for total spiritual inability, none, zip, nada.

The entire bible, Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21 demonstrates "moral inability" is mistaken doctrine. Note that this includes all of the scriptures listed mistakenly by Agedman.

Guess jesus was wrong, when he said the new Birth was by the Spirit, who moved as he willed, like the Wind, to produce that in us, eh?

John said that we are the children of God due not to human will, but thru the Will of God...

Acts has it that as amany as were appointed unto eternal life received jesus bythe hearing o fthe preaching of the Apostles...

seems that Paul and Isaiah misunderstood, as they have all sinners not comingto God in and of themselves...

Glad that you are here to correct their mistakes!

 

[Van]

Van would take the verse as folks have innate "moral ability" to shut up heaven and prevent folks from entering. But that is no more valid than stating the same were all blind for verse 16 states they were blind.

Yet another utterly false statement. It does not take moral ability to block people, but it takes moral ability to be inclined to seek God by entering heaven.

The verse is not stating that such as these murderers had such power that they actually determined who could and couldn't enter heaven. Rather showing that an end to their administration was upon them.

The issue is men were entering heaven. Notice how that little titbit is being evaded.

According to Van's view - such would be the case, that evil unregenerate hearts have the authority over the very God of Heaven.

Yet another utterly false and complete misstatement of my view. This outright falsehood is uttered by Calvinists time and again. They have not commitment to truth. For God to set the choice of life or death before us and allowing us to make the choice is not overriding God, it is doing what God desires.

So once again, nothing has been offered to alter what Matthew 23:13 says, men had the moral ability to be inclined to be entering heaven. All sorts of subject changes and non-germane talking points where thrown up to muddy the water.

Folks, Calvinism and Edwards offer unbiblical man-made doctrine that nullifies scripture. The Bible teaches men seek God and trust in Christ without be compelled by irresistible grace. It is a simple truth and no amount of shuck and jive will alter it.

 

[Winman]

Van is correct, scripture says that men were "entering in" speaking of heaven, but that the Pharisees hindered them with false doctrine.

Mat 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Van is correct, this verse shows men have the ability to seek God and to believe. But there is more evidence than this.

Mat 21:28 But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.
29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.
30 And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.
31 Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.
32 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.

Jesus compared the publicans and harlots to a son who first refused to go into the father's vineyard and work, but afterwards repented and went.

Then Jesus directly says the publicans and harlots will go into the kingdom of God because they repented when they heard the preaching of John the Baptist and believed.

But then Jesus shows that even these Pharisees could believe. He said they had "seen it" speaking of the publicans and harlots repenting. They understood John's preaching, and they could have repented, but they refused. Then Jesus said that had they repented they could have believed.

The scriptures do not teach inability. Cornelius was not saved, neither did he have the Spirit, so he could not have been regenerated, yet he feared and sought God.

The Philipian jailer was not saved, and yet he sought God.

Total inability is a total sham.

 

[agedman]

Edwards gives the following on moral inability:

To give some instances of this moral Inability.— A woman of great honour and chastity may have a moral Inability to prostitute herself to her slave. A child of great love and duty to his parents, may be thus unable to kill his father. A very lascivious man, in case of certain opportunities and temptations, and in the absence of such and such restraints, may be unable to forbear gratifying his lust. A drunkard, under such and such circumstances, may be unable to forbear taking strong drink. A very malicious man may be unable to exert benevolent acts to an enemy, or to desire his prosperity; yea, some may be so under the power of a vile disposition, that they may be unable to love those who are most worthy of their esteem and affection. A strong habit of virtue, and a great degree of holiness, may cause a moral Inability to love wickedness in general, and may render a man unable to take complacence in wicked persons or things; or to choose a wicked in preference to a virtuous life. And on the other hand, a great degree of habitual wickedness may lay a man under an Inability to love and choose holiness; and render him utterly unable to love an infinitely holy Being, or to choose and cleave to him as his chief good.


...

But it must be observed concerning moral Inability, in each kind of it, that the word Inability is used in a sense very diverse from its original import. The word signifies only a natural Inability, in the proper use of it; and is applied to such cases only wherein a present will or inclination to the thing, with respect to which a person is said to be unable, is supposable.

...

A moral agent is a being that is capable of those actions that have a moral quality, and which can properly be denominated good or evil in a moral sense, virtuous or vicious, commendable or faulty. To moral Agency belongs a moral faculty, or sense of moral good and evil, or of such a thing as desert or worthiness, of praise or blame, reward or punishments; and a capacity which an Agent has of being influenced in his actions by moral inducements or motives, exhibited to the view of understanding and reason, to engage to a conduct agreeable to the moral faculty.
...

The essential qualities of a moral Agent are in God, in the greatest possible perfection; such as understanding to perceive the difference between moral good and evil; a capacity of discerning that moral worthiness and demerit, by which some things are praiseworthy, others deserving of blame and punishment; and also a capacity of choice, and choice guided by understanding, and a power of acting according to his choice or pleasure, and being capable ofdoing those things which are in the highest sense praiseworthy. And herein does very much consist that image of God wherein he made man, (which we read of, Gen. 1:26, 27, and chap. 9:6.) by which God distinguished man from the beasts, viz. in those faculties and principles of nature, whereby He is capable of moral Agency. Herein very much consists the natural image of God; whereas the spiritual and moral image, wherein man was made at first, consisted in that moral excellency with which he was endowed.



​

There is no argument that humankind are all morally culpable - for "there is none righteous."



However, throughout the Scriptures, God has called folks to do what they cannot by nature and ability do.

For instance, was Moses by his own authority able to convince Pharaoh? Was Lazarus by his own ability able to raise himself? Could the man lowered through the roof by his own authority rise up and walk? Could the blind see, the blood stop, and lepers healed by their own volition? Can one by word or thought add hair or height? Can a mere human keep another human from heaven?

Both Winman and Van would have the folks agree that through some "moral ability" a person can keep another from entering the kingdom of God. That God would leave behind one of his own because some third party human would not allow entry.

As I stated earlier, this thinking is contrary to the authority and nature of God.

I have posted an extensive part of one section of Edwards writing to demonstrate how Van and Winman by not reading what Edwards wrote were not only incorrect in their assumptions, but also by showing in this post the futility of their offering.

Christ said that parents know the difference between what constitutes a good gift and a bad gift. That is moral ability to intellectualize a selection based upon an established criterion.

But, such intellectualizing can not stop another from entering heaven, which is what both Van and Winman would desire to support.



Edwards points out:

... a man may then be said to be morally unable to do a thing, when he is under the influence or prevalence of a contrary inclination, or has a want of inclination, under such circumstances and views. It is also evident, from what has been before proved, that the Will is always, and in every individual act, necessarily determined by the strongest motive; and so is always unable to go against the motive, which, all things considered, has now the greatest strength and advantage to move the Will.



​

(All quotes taken from Freedom of the Will)

 

[Winman]

Edwards gives the following on moral inability:

To give some instances of this moral Inability.— A woman of great honour and chastity may have a moral Inability to prostitute herself to her slave. A child of great love and duty to his parents, may be thus unable to kill his father. A very lascivious man, in case of certain opportunities and temptations, and in the absence of such and such restraints, may be unable to forbear gratifying his lust. A drunkard, under such and such circumstances, may be unable to forbear taking strong drink. A very malicious man may be unable to exert benevolent acts to an enemy, or to desire his prosperity; yea, some may be so under the power of a vile disposition, that they may be unable to love those who are most worthy of their esteem and affection. A strong habit of virtue, and a great degree of holiness, may cause a moral Inability to love wickedness in general, and may render a man unable to take complacence in wicked persons or things; or to choose a wicked in preference to a virtuous life. And on the other hand, a great degree of habitual wickedness may lay a man under an Inability to love and choose holiness; and render him utterly unable to love an infinitely holy Being, or to choose and cleave to him as his chief good.

This is a confusing and contradictory statement. Edwards is not saying all men are unable to do good, in fact he says some men like the child with great love would have an inability to kill his father. This is not what Calvinism teaches, Calvinism teaches man is unable to do good, although they contradict this and immediately say a man is not necessarily as evil as he could be. This itself is a contradiction, if man is unable to do good, he would always be his very worst.

But it must be observed concerning moral Inability, in each kind of it, that the word Inability is used in a sense very diverse from its original import. The word signifies only a natural Inability, in the proper use of it; and is applied to such cases only wherein a present will or inclination to the thing, with respect to which a person is said to be unable, is supposable.

Here he admits he is playing with words, and not using the word "inability" in it's true or dictionary definition sense. Note he speaks of a "present will". In other words, a man who is evil today has the present inability to do good, but if he repents tomorrow he is no longer bound under inability. This is nothing but pure double-talk.

A moral agent is a being that is capable of those actions that have a moral quality, and which can properly be denominated good or evil in a moral sense, virtuous or vicious, commendable or faulty. To moral Agency belongs a moral faculty, or sense of moral good and evil, or of such a thing as desert or worthiness, of praise or blame, reward or punishments; and a capacity which an Agent has of being influenced in his actions by moral inducements or motives, exhibited to the view of understanding and reason, to engage to a conduct agreeable to the moral faculty.

All persons agree that a moral agent can discern between good and evil and has the ability to do either.

The essential qualities of a moral Agent are in God, in the greatest possible perfection; such as understanding to perceive the difference between moral good and evil; a capacity of discerning that moral worthiness and demerit, by which some things are praiseworthy, others deserving of blame and punishment; and also a capacity of choice, and choice guided by understanding, and a power of acting according to his choice or pleasure, and being capable of doing those things which are in the highest sense praiseworthy. And herein does very much consist that image of God wherein he made man, (which we read of, Gen. 1:26, 27, and chap. 9:6.) by which God distinguished man from the beasts, viz. in those faculties and principles of nature, whereby He is capable of moral Agency. Herein very much consists the natural image of God; whereas the spiritual and moral image, wherein man was made at first, consisted in that moral excellency with which he was endowed.

Very wordy, he is simply saying a man has the ability to choose to do good or evil. In other words, man has ability.

There is no argument that humankind are all morally culpable - for "there is none righteous."

Men are morally culpable exactly because they do have ability.

However, throughout the Scriptures, God has called folks to do what they cannot by nature and ability do.

This is his opinion.

For instance, was Moses by his own authority able to convince Pharaoh?

No, and neither was God, though he showed Pharaoh many miracles through Moses.

Was Lazarus by his own ability able to raise himself?

Being raised from physical death and moral ability are not the same things. It is not proper to use Lazarus as an example of moral ability or inability, as he was physically dead at the time, not morally dead. Apples and oranges.

Could the man lowered through the roof by his own authority rise up and walk?

No, but he had faith.

Could the blind see, the blood stop, and lepers healed by their own volition?

No, but they had faith.

Can one by word or thought add hair or height?

Physical features like color and amount of hair, color of eyes, and height have nothing to do with moral ability or inability. A man can repent from evil, but no man can will his blue eyes to turn brown.

Can a mere human keep another human from heaven?

Yes, by teaching false doctrine. Happens every day.

Both Winman and Van would have the folks agree that through some "moral ability" a person can keep another from entering the kingdom of God. That God would leave behind one of his own because some third party human would not allow entry.

Jesus constantly warned his disciples not to be deceived. If your view was correct, no such warning would be necessary.

Luk 21:8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.

If Jesus warned his disciples who were believers to be careful that they be not deceived, how much more can an unregenerate person be deceived?

As I stated earlier, this thinking is contrary to the authority and nature of God.

No, it is contrary to your presuppositions.

I have posted an extensive part of one section of Edwards writing to demonstrate how Van and Winman by not reading what Edwards wrote were not only incorrect in their assumptions, but also by showing in this post the futility of their offering.

I have read enough here to see he repeatedly contradicts himself, and even admits that when he uses the "inability" he does not use it in the dictionary definition sense. He applies his own definitions to words that others might not be aware of.

Christ said that parents know the difference between what constitutes a good gift and a bad gift. That is moral ability to intellectualize a selection based upon an established criterion.

He also said they were able to do good, they did not give their children a stone, but gave them bread, they did not give them a serpent, but gave them a fish. This is ability, not inability.

Luk 11:11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Jesus didn't say men are unable to do good, he said the exact opposite, that men KNOW HOW to give good gifts to their children. This is ability, not inability.

But, such intellectualizing can not stop another from entering heaven, which is what both Van and Winman would desire to support.

Teaching false doctrine can absolutely prevent another person from entering heaven. The scriptures warn repeatedly about false prophets and teachers.

Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Edwards points out:

... a man may then be said to be morally unable to do a thing, when he is under the influence or prevalence of a contrary inclination, or has a want of inclination, under such circumstances and views. It is also evident, from what has been before proved, that the Will is always, and in every individual act, necessarily determined by the strongest motive; and so is always unable to go against the motive, which, all things considered, has now the greatest strength and advantage to move the Will.

Well, of course while a man is under the prevalence of a contrary inclination he cannot do good. This does not mean he cannot be influenced by the word of God and the conviction of the Holy Spirit to repent.

(All quotes taken from Freedom of the Will

 

[agedman]

This is a confusing and contradictory statement. Edwards is not saying all men are unable to do good, in fact he says some men like the child with great love would have an inability to kill his father. This is not what Calvinism teaches, Calvinism teaches man is unable to do good, although they contradict this and immediately say a man is not necessarily as evil as he could be. This itself is a contradiction, if man is unable to do good, he would always be his very worst.

It would have been wiser for you to have taken time to actually read with comprehension what Edwards wrote, rather than relying upon "Cliff note" versions.

You did presume that Edwards wrote totally from a "Calvinistic view," and you do seem surprised that you find that some his statements may actually challenge that view. Perhaps if you actually read what he wrote, you would find more such areas.

Edwards was no parrot, nor did he have a stunted intellect that obliged him to "follow the party line" so to speak.

You would do well to actually read in total what he wrote.

Here he admits he is playing with words, and not using the word "inability" in it's true or dictionary definition sense. Note he speaks of a "present will". In other words, a man who is evil today has the present inability to do good, but if he repents tomorrow he is no longer bound under inability. This is nothing but pure double-talk.

If you had read in total what he wrote - not just what I copied and pasted, you would see exactly why he did not use the typical broad "dictionary definition(s)" but used words that he would narrow the definition so that no one would take liberty with the statements by turning the definition to something other than he specified. Edwards wanted to make certain that in every point, not one person could take license with his writing.

Being raised from physical death and moral ability are not the same things. It is not proper to use Lazarus as an example of moral ability or inability, as he was physically dead at the time, not morally dead. Apples and oranges.

But do you not see that it is a perfect example. Lazarus - had he moral authority (as did the Lord Jesus Christ) - would certainly have had the ability to raise himself - or demand that God raise him for he would have been morally equal to God.

But more, it would seem you want to redefine "moral ability" to moral choice which (in this matter), but then in application you put moral ability as being able to choose between life and death - without the attention of God to the matter. That is why Lazarus is a prime example of the failure of your view.

Physical features like color and amount of hair, color of eyes, and height have nothing to do with moral ability or inability. A man can repent from evil, but no man can will his blue eyes to turn brown.

Paul states, "For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death."

Can a person without God, without the purposed intervention of God, have of their own volition "sorrow according to the will of God?" The Scripture does not support that thinking. What the Scriptures clearly teach is:

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
​

Agedman said, "Can a mere human keep another human from eternity?
To which Winman stated, "Yes, by teaching false doctrine. Happens every day."

It is God's word that is able to divide the soul and spirit. NOT human manipulation. If God wants someone saved, they will be saved.

The Scriptures state:

Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me. 26“But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. 27“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29“My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30“I and the Father are one.”
​

Jesus constantly warned his disciples not to be deceived. If your view was correct, no such warning would be necessary.

Luk 21:8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.

If Jesus warned his disciples who were believers to be careful that they be not deceived, how much more can an unregenerate person be deceived?

Being deceived is NOT the same as being unsaved. Christ is addressing the followers - later John chariots a similar theme: "These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you."

But more, your application is attempting to make the words apply to the unsaved.

The unsaved are deceived already. That they follow deceivers is part and parcel of the fallen nature. "There is THEREFORE no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus..." This verse in contrast to what Christ Jesus states, "Those that believe not are condemned ALREADY..."

You are the one mixing apples and oranges in taking what was clearly stated to the followers and attempting to make it apply to the unbelievers.

I have read enough here to see he repeatedly contradicts himself, and even admits that when he uses the "inability" he does not use it in the dictionary definition sense. He applies his own definitions to words that others might not be aware of.

No, Winman, he doesn't "apply his own definitions to the words" but is using terms and clarifying the precise parameters of which the words were to be applied to his work.

That you or some other do not like the structure that he constructs attends more to your inability than his ability. (to use what the theme of the post )

He also said they were able to do good, they did not give their children a stone, but gave them bread, they did not give them a serpent, but gave them a fish. This is ability, not inability.

Luk 11:11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Jesus didn't say men are unable to do good, he said the exact opposite, that men KNOW HOW to give good gifts to their children. This is ability, not inability.

Which, if you have read with comprehension the total, he is in total agreement with the Scriptures - again note the precise definition of the wording that he is working.

Teaching false doctrine can absolutely prevent another person from entering heaven. The scriptures warn repeatedly about false prophets and teachers.

Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Again, Wiman, you are using words spoken by Christ to His followers and applicable to the current followers (believers). He was NOT addressing those who were not his followers.

What care do the heathen lost have if they are more deceived than the deceit in which they by nature abide. It will make them no more lost than the condemnation in which they already abide.

Your argument at this point is not foundational.

Well, of course while a man is under the prevalence of a contrary inclination he cannot do good. This does not mean he cannot be influenced by the word of God and the conviction of the Holy Spirit to repent.

Everyone NOTE - Winman admits that it is NOT moral ability as he would attempt to decree, but the DIRECT and PURPOSED work "by the Word of God and the conviction of the Holy Spirit."

This statement alone, shows that Winman does not support his own claim that humankind have by their own volition the natural moral authority and capability to enter or be kept from heaven.

 

[Winman]

Agedman, if you think I am going to go back and forth with you with these mind-numbing long posts, you are mistaken.

I don't care what Edwards wrote about inability, I read the Bible. The story of Cornelius alone completely refutes Total Inability. Cornelius was not saved, neither did he have the Holy Spirit, yet he was able to fear God, pray always, and do many good works that God recognized.

The scriptures clearly show that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, so no man could possibly merit salvation. So, men are unable to save themselves.

The scriptures also clearly show that no man could believe on Jesus unless he has heard of him (Rom 10:14), so in this sense men are unable to believe without God's grace. But as soon as a preacher comes and preaches the gospel to that man, if he will listen to and learn from the word of God he is enabled to believe on Jesus Christ. This is what the scriptures show.

My authority is the scriptures, not the writings of men.

 

[Iconoclast]

Cornelius was not saved,

you repeat this error all the time....you do not know Cornelius...or his condition.

There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,

2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

He was a proselyte.
from smiths bible dictionary....

Proselyte [E]

(a stranger, a new comer ), the name given by the Jews to foreigners who adopted the Jewish religion. The dispersion of the Jews in foreign countries, which has been spoken of elsewhere [DISPERSION, THE], enabled them to make many converts to their faith. The converts who were thus attracted joined, with varying strictness, in the worship of the Jews. In Palestine itself, even Roman centurions learned to love the conquered nation built synagogues for them, ( Luke 7:5 ) fasted and prayed, and gave alms after the pattern of the strictest Jews, ( Acts 10:2 Acts 10:30 ) and became preachers of the new faith to the soldiers under them. ( Acts 10:7 ) Such men, drawn by what was best in Judaism were naturally among the readiest receivers of the new truth which rose out of it, and became, in many cases, the nucleus of a Gentile Church.

 

[Winman]

you repeat this error all the time....you do not know Cornelius...or his condition.



He was a proselyte.
from smiths bible dictionary....

Proselyte [E]

(a stranger, a new comer ), the name given by the Jews to foreigners who adopted the Jewish religion. The dispersion of the Jews in foreign countries, which has been spoken of elsewhere [DISPERSION, THE], enabled them to make many converts to their faith. The converts who were thus attracted joined, with varying strictness, in the worship of the Jews. In Palestine itself, even Roman centurions learned to love the conquered nation built synagogues for them, ( Luke 7:5 ) fasted and prayed, and gave alms after the pattern of the strictest Jews, ( Acts 10:2 Acts 10:30 ) and became preachers of the new faith to the soldiers under them. ( Acts 10:7 ) Such men, drawn by what was best in Judaism were naturally among the readiest receivers of the new truth which rose out of it, and became, in many cases, the nucleus of a Gentile Church.

Again, my authority is the scriptures, not the writings of men.

How do I know Cornelius was not saved? Because the angel that spoke to him told him to send for Peter where he and his household would hear words and be saved.

Acts 10:13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;
14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

Verse 14 shows us that Cornelius was not saved, else he would not have needed to send for Peter to hear the gospel and be saved. Your argument is refuted by the word of God.

And verse 15 shows us that Cornelius was not regenerated, as Romans 8:9 tells us that a man without the indwelling Spirit is "in the flesh". So, until Cornelius received the Holy Spirit he was unsaved and in the flesh, yet he was able to fear God, pray always, and do good works that Peter himself called works of righteousness.

So, I don't care what your Reformed "scholars" say, I listen to the scriptures.

 

[agedman]

Again, my authority is the scriptures, not the writings of men.

How do I know Cornelius was not saved? Because the angel that spoke to him told him to send for Peter where he and his household would hear words and be saved.

Acts 10:13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;
14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

Verse 14 shows us that Cornelius was not saved, else he would not have needed to send for Peter to hear the gospel and be saved. Your argument is refuted by the word of God.

And verse 15 shows us that Cornelius was not regenerated, as Romans 8:9 tells us that a man without the indwelling Spirit is "in the flesh". So, until Cornelius received the Holy Spirit he was unsaved and in the flesh, yet he was able to fear God, pray always, and do good works that Peter himself called works of righteousness.

So, I don't care what your Reformed "scholars" say, I listen to the scriptures.

Switching terms from the discussion of Edwards' use of moral ability to that of total inability is incorrect. The terms are not interchangeable.

More to the point, you admit that without the direct and purposed work of both the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit, no person is saved.

However, then you point to Cornelius, who was obviously worked upon by the Holy Spirit in conviction of sin, of righteousness and judgment (the work the Holy Spirit - John 16), as an example of your view of moral ability.

Why, would God send an angel to a person whom He never intended to Save?

Just how did the angel know some days BEFORE Peter even brought the Gospel?

What right did the angel have to declare that both Cornelius and His whole house would be saved if God had not ordained and decreed the salvation?

Note the angel left no doubt as to the results - and it was NEVER in the volition of Cornelius as to the timing nor the circumstances.

Could not God have just as easily never spoken to Peter? What state would then Cornelius have been left?

The point being that all you have shown is that If Cornelius was able to express such moral ability without the "preaching" of Christ, then Peter's journey was not necessary and Cornelius could have relied upon his own innate fallen nature to gain entry to heaven.

This of course, rightfully, you cannot support - for it is truly unscriptural.

Then the only alternative remaining is to accept what Edwards discussed.

 

[Winman]

Switching terms from the discussion of Edwards' use of moral ability to that of total inability is incorrect. The terms are not interchangeable.

You believe a man must be regenerated before he can be willing come to God or believe in him, I utterly reject this view. The scriptures repeatedly teach a man must first believe to be regenerated or have spiritual life. I have shown probably dozens of verses to support my view MANY times, so there is no use to show them again.

More to the point, you admit that without the direct and purposed work of both the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit, no person is saved.

Of course, no man is born knowing who the true God or Jesus Christ is. Unless God had given prophets and preachers to teach and record the word of God, we would all be in utter darkness. That said, once a man hears the preaching of God's word or reads the scriptures, he is enabled to believe God's word if he so chooses to do so.

However, then you point to Cornelius, who was obviously worked upon by the Holy Spirit in conviction of sin, of righteousness and judgment (the work the Holy Spirit - John 16), as an example of your view of moral ability.

Of course Cornelius had to hear of the true God to believe in him, no man is born with this knowledge. That said, he did not have to be regenerated to believe in the true God when he heard of him. Scripture itself proves this, he feared God, he prayed always, and did many good works, but he was neither saved, nor did he have the indwelling Spirit, so he could not possibly have been regenerated.

Why, would God send an angel to a person whom He never intended to Save?

God desires to save everybody. But Cornelius was very devout and sincere and prayed to God always, so God answered by sending an angel to him to tell him how to be saved.

Just how did the angel know some days BEFORE Peter even brought the Gospel?

What? God sent the angel to speak to Cornelius. God had heard Cornelius's prayers and knew his good works.

Acts 10:4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.

What right did the angel have to declare that both Cornelius and His whole house would be saved if God had not ordained and decreed the salvation?

What? It is obvious Cornelius desired to be saved, he prayed to God "alway".

Note the angel left no doubt as to the results - and it was NEVER in the volition of Cornelius as to the timing nor the circumstances.

God knows in his foreknowledge who will believe.

Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

The scriptures tell us Jesus "knew from the beginning who believed not" so by process of elimination he also knows from the beginning who will believe. This is called foreknowledge.

You do not get it, you are reading your presuppositions into scripture. First, you assume Total Inability is true when that is the question being debated, then you assume God must have caused Cornelius to believe, when again that is the question being debated.

Fact is, Cornelius was able to believe before he was saved and before he received the Holy Spirit which completely refutes your view.

Could not God have just as easily never spoken to Peter? What state would then Cornelius have been left?

What kind of silly argument is this? Do you believe that introducing hypothetical situations into an argument that never happened proves your argument? They don't.

What if the Sun exploded a thousand years before Peter and Cornelius were born? Where would they have been then? Really ridiculous form of argument.

The point being that all you have shown is that If Cornelius was able to express such moral ability without the "preaching" of Christ, then Peter's journey was not necessary and Cornelius could have relied upon his own innate fallen nature to gain entry to heaven.

Nobody is born knowing of the true God, nobody is born knowing of Jesus. All of us had to hear of God somewhere. My parents took me to church when I was a little boy, and this is where I heard of the true God and Jesus. Some folks hear from a missionary, some folks hear from a friend, but everyone must hear about Jesus to believe on him. Cornelius lived in Palestine and had obviously heard of God from the Jews, and obviously he believed the OT scriptures. But he was not saved or regenerated yet.

This of course, rightfully, you cannot support - for it is truly unscriptural.

Then the only alternative remaining is to accept what Edwards discussed.

You are the one quoting a man, I am quoting the scriptures. I have shown you scripture where the angel told Cornelius to send for Peter where he would hear words and be "saved", I have shown you from scripture that he did not receive the Holy Spirit until after he heard Peter preach. I have shown you from scripture that no man is regenerated until he has the indwelling Holy Spirit, and I have shown you that Cornelius feared God, sought God, and prayed to God all before he received the Spirit and was regenerated.

My view is absolutely scriptural, I prove it from scripture itself. You quote the philosophy of men.

 

[Yeshua1]

Again, as per his norm, van misunderstands what calvinism actually teaches!

Man as a sinner can still "seek" God, as they still have the witness to God being real and alive due to seeing Him in his creation, but THAT will NOT lead to them to calling upon the name of jesus, for that requires special revelation, granted by the Holy Spiritunto those who have been chosen by the father to receive the work of his Spirit that opens them up to actually know in a personally saving fashion that God in cretion!

Cornelius would have known of the God of isreal, would have done alms and offerings, but did NOT know Him in a saving way until the angel directed him to Simon peter, and the Gospel and the HS completed the process, as he was one of those gentiles appointed unto eternal life in Christ!

 

[The Biblicist]

Debate with these individuals is a waste of time. For there to be any profitable debate there has to be honesty and objectivity and these men have neither. I don't care what evidence you present they would deny it simply because they have already made up their mind to reject anything and everything contrary to their system of belief.

 

[agedman]

You believe a man must be regenerated before he can be willing come to God or believe in him, I utterly reject this view. The scriptures repeatedly teach a man must first believe to be regenerated or have spiritual life. I have shown probably dozens of verses to support my view MANY times, so there is no use to show them again.

My view isn't an issue in this thread. The thread is upon what Edwards wrote. I do not recall Edwards addressing "regeneration" as part of his work on "Freedom of the Will."

Of course, no man is born knowing who the true God or Jesus Christ is. Unless God had given prophets and preachers to teach and record the word of God, we would all be in utter darkness. That said, once a man hears the preaching of God's word or reads the scriptures, he is enabled to believe God's word if he so chooses to do so.

Just how is he "enabled?"

According to you and Van, does not the person by nature and volition have "moral authority?"

Isn't that your argument?

But then you state they have to be "enabled."

You constantly attempt to switch horses mid stream and not expect to get wet!

Either stick with your view that humankind is BORN with a nature that is totally capable by innate volition and without the direct and purposed work of God to "accept or reject" Christ, or you must agree that what Edwards wrote was correct - though you haven't read it.

Of course Cornelius had to hear of the true God to believe in him, no man is born with this knowledge. That said, he did not have to be regenerated to believe in the true God when he heard of him. Scripture itself proves this, he feared God, he prayed always, and did many good works, but he was neither saved, nor did he have the indwelling Spirit, so he could not possibly have been regenerated.

It is YOU who desire to insert "regeneration" into the discussion. Edwards is NOT discussing that topic in "Freedom of the Will."

This is an attempt on your part to detract from the real purpose of what Edwards is stating.

Do you have some construction that the Holy Spirit does not even attend to a person until after conversion and therefore Cornelius couldn't have been under Godly conviction until he heard the message from Peter?

God desires to save everybody. But Cornelius was very devout and sincere and prayed to God always, so God answered by sending an angel to him to tell him how to be saved.

What? God sent the angel to speak to Cornelius. God had heard Cornelius's prayers and knew his good works.

Acts 10:4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.


What? It is obvious Cornelius desired to be saved, he prayed to God "alway".

God knows in his foreknowledge who will believe.

Here is a problem that doesn't need to be addressed in this thread. The new thread would ask if what God "desires" can not be fulfilled, and therefore would God be unsatisfied.

But, that is not for this thread.

The angel didn't tell him how to be saved, that was the message Peter brought. The angel said both Cornelius and the household would in fact be saved. This done days before Peter even arrived on the scene.

Cornelius' "desire to be saved" was unsatisfactorily met by what he was "doing." Just as the Philippian jailor cried out "What must I DO to be saved," it is the nature of one under conviction to look for some way to appease God. Peter's message to Cornelius wasn't of appeasement but of propitiation.

It is remarkable that you and Van are not in more disagreement. Van does not hold that "God knows in his foreknowledge who will believe." Rather, Van holds to some type of general election in which some will come to Christ in their lifetime, and God doesn't presuppose, or extend His foreknowledge to exactly who will or won't be saved in the future.

As you point out, Cornelius is in direct refutation of that view.

Jhn 6:64

But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

The scriptures tell us Jesus "knew from the beginning who believed not" so by process of elimination he also knows from the beginning who will believe. This is called foreknowledge.

You do not get it, you are reading your presuppositions into scripture. First, you assume Total Inability is true when that is the question being debated, then you assume God must have caused Cornelius to believe, when again that is the question being debated.

Fact is, Cornelius was able to believe before he was saved and before he received the Holy Spirit which completely refutes your view.

You stated earlier, in this post, "That said, once a man hears the preaching of God's word or reads the scriptures, he is enabled to believe God's word if he so chooses to do so."

So, either you must hold that Cornelius was ALREADY capable of belief or he was ENABLED to believe.

You can't have it both ways, Winman.

If you hold that Cornelius was ALREADY capable of belief, then that indicates that the work of the Holy Spirit was already involved - therefore Cornelius was already under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

What kind of silly argument is this? Do you believe that introducing hypothetical situations into an argument that never happened proves your argument? They don't.

What if the Sun exploded a thousand years before Peter and Cornelius were born? Where would they have been then? Really ridiculous form of argument.

Not a "silly argument" at all. The question pertains directly to the purpose and work of God. Philip was taken to the desert on purpose. Peter was given a dream on purpose. Paul states that he wanted to go to one place, but God moved him in another direction on purpose.

God moves in the life and living of the believer on purpose, both before and after conversion.

There is not one person that God gives to the Son that will go unsaved. That is the point of the statement.

Nobody is born knowing of the true God, nobody is born knowing of Jesus. All of us had to hear of God somewhere. My parents took me to church when I was a little boy, and this is where I heard of the true God and Jesus. Some folks hear from a missionary, some folks hear from a friend, but everyone must hear about Jesus to believe on him. Cornelius lived in Palestine and had obviously heard of God from the Jews, and obviously he believed the OT scriptures. But he was not saved or regenerated yet.

Agreed.

You are the one quoting a man, I am quoting the scriptures. I have shown you scripture where the angel told Cornelius to send for Peter where he would hear words and be "saved", I have shown you from scripture that he did not receive the Holy Spirit until after he heard Peter preach. I have shown you from scripture that no man is regenerated until he has the indwelling Holy Spirit, and I have shown you that Cornelius feared God, sought God, and prayed to God all before he received the Spirit and was regenerated.

My view is absolutely scriptural, I prove it from scripture itself. You quote the philosophy of men.

Again, you are mixing regeneration into the topic of the thread.

Spout all you want that I am resting upon the philosophy of men and you upon Scriptures, but those reading the thread will see that I have taken the Scriptures YOU offered and shown how they do not support your view.

You want to rely upon Scriptures - that is all well and good. But at least get the proper meaning and intent!

Cornelius is a great example that supports what Edwards wrote.

Read with comprehension the work of Edwards on "The Freedom of the Will." You might be surprised on what you two would agree.

As far as "philosophy" compared to a view based on Scripture, I posted about a third of the Scriptures that Edwards used in his writing. It would seem that if one is going to spout who posts Scriptures, then they would actually read what is supported by an abundant amount of Scriptures rather than attempt to refute someone they claim doesn't use Scriptures.

Read the work, Winman.

The OP states that I hadn't read it in a long time. I hope you actually will take the time to read with comprehension (not just scanning) what Edwards wrote.