Winman, YOU have not shown were I stated that the unregenerate was unable to do good.
Please show exactly were I made that statement.
When you said this;
"the unregenerate human has no other response but to submit to the unregenerate will."
Perhaps you can explain exactly what you are saying here.
Oh, Winman, you neglect, "There is none righteous, no not one."
I do not deny this, to be righteous means to be 100% righteous without ever sinning. No man is righteous in this respect. This does not mean than man cannot do righteous works, in fact the scriptures say he can.
Eze18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live?
All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.
This is God himself speaking, and he is speaking of a lost person here. God says if a man turns from his righteousness and commits sin, all his "righteousness that he hath done" shall not be mentioned.
Men can do righteous works, God himself said so. But the moment a man sins he is condemned by the law and comes short of the glory of God. A man will die in this sin unless he places faith in Christ.
Barnes states the matter in these terms:
It should be remembered, further, that he was ready to receive the gospel when it was offered to him, and to become a Christian. In this there was an important difference between him and those who are depending for salvation on their morality in Christian lands. Such men are apt to defend themselves by the example of Cornelius, and to suppose that as he was accepted before he embraced the gospel, so they may be without embracing it. But there is an important difference in the two cases. For,
(1.) there is no evidence that Cornelius was depending on external morality for salvation. His offering was that of the heart, and not merely an external offering. Moral men in Christian lands depend on their external morality in the sight of men. But God looks upon the heart.
(2.) Cornelius did not rely on his morality at all. His was a work of religion. He feared God; he prayed to him; he exerted his influence to bring his family to the same state. Moral men do neither. All their works they do to be "seen of men;" and in their heart there is "no good thing towards the Lord God of Israel." Comp. #1Ki 14:13 2Ch 19:3. Who hears of a man that "fears God," and that prays, and that instructs his household in religion, that depends on his morality for salvation?
(3.) Cornelius was disposed to do the will of God, as far as it was made known to him. Where this exists there is religion. The moral man is not.
(4.) Cornelius was willing to embrace a Savior, when he was made known to him. The moral man is not. He hears of a Savior with unconcern; he listens to the message of God's mercy from year to year without embracing it. In all this there is an important difference between him and the Roman centurion; and while we hope there may be many in pagan lands who are in the same state of mind that he was --disposed to do the will of God as far as made known, and therefore accepted and saved by his mercy in the Lord Jesus--yet this cannot be adduced to encourage the hope of salvation in those who do know his will, and yet will not do it.
Well, I only quoted Barnes before because I knew you would not listen to my explanation of Romans 8. I do not agree with Barnes here, the scriptures say that Cornelius was a devout man who feared God, yet we know for a fact he was not saved, and did not have the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Now, did Cornelius do this without the grace of God? No, and I have always said that no man could possibly believe in the true God unless God had graciously revealed himself through the word of God. But this does not mean that a man must be supernaturally regenerated to believe. Cornelius no doubt had heard the OT scriptures and believed them, so he certainly was assisted by God. But there is no mention of him being regenerated to believe as Calvinsim teaches.
I posted, "I stated, "the unregenerate human has no other response but to submit to the unregenerate will."
To which you responded:
Yes, and I would like you to explain exactly what you mean by this. Are you saying a man will always reject the gospel? If so, scripture argues against you, many thousands of folks believed on Christ before the indwelling Holy Spirit was given. Can a man be regenerated without the indwelling Holy Spirit?
I thought you would have already known this, but here is "one Scripture to support" you desired.
Consider: 1 Cor 2
14 But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Oh, I have seen this quoted by Calvinists dozens of times, but Galatians 3:2 shows the Calvinist interpretation of this false.
Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
This question by Paul demands the answer that these Galatians received the Holy Spirit AFTER hearing and believing the gospel.
Now, I ask you, is it possible for a man to be regenerated without the indwelling Holy Spirit? Please answer that question directly.
If they believed then they were infused with the "new nature" and will in order to express such belief - just as Romans teaches.
There is no "if" about it, the scriptures say many people believed on Christ before the Holy Spirit was given.
Again, I ask you, is it possible to be regenerated without the indwelling Holy Spirit? Please answer that.
Really? You aren't fooled? You embrace a view that I have shown Scriptural proof is adverse to your thinking and you are not fooled?
No, I am not. Calvinists constantly accuse non-Cals of being Pelagians. It is simply the old "guilty by association" tactic. I don't have a clue what Pelagius truly believed, and I doubt you do either.
You stated you didn't investigate the connection, and yet have the audacity to doubt not only my veracity but claim I am using some tactic of deceit?
Yes, I am saying directly that you are using the old tactic of "guilty by association" that many Calvinists use. You have been taught well.
If you can call me a Pelagian, then why can't I accuse you of a dishonest tactic? What is good for the goose is good for the gander, if you can't take the heat, you should get out of the kitchen.
Winman, look at the evidence of the root of your view for yourself if you don't believe me.
My view is arrived at by my personal study of scripture. If it happens to agree with Pelagius in some respects, who cares? I don't. I am not exactly sure what Pelagius believed, and I doubt anyone does. Most of what has been written about Pelagius has been written by those who use him to slur others. It is real easy to make claims against a dead man who cannot defend himself.
This is Pelagian who was a heretic. I have shown you Scriptures. You reject the Scriptures and have embraced in at least two posts this Pelagian heresy.
Who called him a heretic? The Roman Catholic Church and Augustine, the most corrupt church that the world has ever seen! Do you believe everything that Augustine and the RCC tells you?
NO, that is Pelagian thinking. Humankind is born in sin. They from conception have the imputation of Adams unrighteousness.
I disagree, the scriptures say that God has made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions. In other words, they become sinful AFTER they are born.
Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found,
that God hath made man upright; but
they have sought out many inventions
The word "they" points back to the word "man" and shows this is speaking of every man.