Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

I also think believers in God but yet unbelievers in Jesus Christ doing some righteousness pleases Him

Here is an example of reality from the modern world.

Putin controls Russia and Zelensky controls Ukraine.

Did God elect Putin and Zelensky?

Is the population of Russia living in a country that God defined by His sovereign will?

Magenta, I don't think you understand what you're talking about.

Of course you do. Yet Scripture says something completely different. The opposite, in fact.

You're butting in again.

When men make up metaphors they normally make them up to fit their interpretations of Scripture. The unbeliever as a corpse is dumb.

You may look around at unbelieving humanity as dust, but I see people who have retained some of the God designed and implemented faculties in God's likeness so on the plus side can reason and choose and love and help others and respond to God's Law working in consciences and respond to spiritual forces and Spiritual restraints, etc...

I disagree with the corpse metaphor you TULIPers coined based upon what I view as poor theology.

I asked you a question already: what was true of man before the fall that wasn't true after the fall?

And yet they lack faith without which it is impossible to please God.

Oh...that easy for FWer to answer. After Adam fell he bruised his knee slightly, but then picked himself up and dusted
himself off and mankind continued on his way. Not much much to see in the Fall of Mankind or its consequences.

I already understand what you believe, even without any consideration of reformed theology. Thus, reformed theology and Calvinism is unnecessary to the discussion

The only reason one brings superfluous into the discussion is to in some way use it discredit another's beliefs.

It also evidences bias assumed into the arguments. You may recognize this or not, but it is true.

If I answer your questions directly, you will simply sort the answers according to your existing bias without ever receiving any greater understanding.

At the very least, if you are truly interested in truth, you would want to understand the basis of my conclusions

As this isn't the case, my answer would only serve to cement your aforementioned biases and misconceptions. So instead, I presented you with a very real opportunity to learn. Surely something was different in the experience and actions of Adam and Eve after the fall that they never experienced or did before sin. What were these things, why did they occur, and what can we surmise from them?

That was the discussion as it began - how your belief compares to the Calvinism T.

I don't recall having seen you do much detailed work in Scripture.

So the writers of scriptures made up their own metaphors?

You don't believe the Holy Spirit uses all manners of speech to express his truth?

And your dead wrong about men forcing metaphors to "fit their interpretations". Look up the definition of "metaphor" already, ad get a clue! This from Dictionary.com:

That was the discussion as it began - how your belief compares to the Calvinism T.



Per my statement above, it was the discussion and therefore not superfluous. I've left extensive room in discussions with you before to not represent your view as being precisely the same as T and was willing to continue in that vein. You're prejudging motives and wrongly. As far as I'm concerned Cameronism is not TULIPism until if and when it's all played out. Accept this or don't, your choice.



Yes, I have a bias and so do you and so does most everyone. Do you accept this or is it just others that are biased while you're not?



Another assumption. If you are able to detail your explanation from Scripture, I will listen as I did before. I don't recall having seen you do much detailed work in Scripture. If I disagree with you in discussing Scripture I will do my best to deal with Scripture in context and seek to point out any insertions or deletions not clearly stated whether by me or you or by anyone else.

When we last discussed and you proffered Rom8 I did just that. I've also done so with 1Cor2:14 on more than one occasion openly. Whether you were involved or not, I don't recall. If I agree or disagree I try to be clear as to why.



Meaning your conclusions are Biblical truth or if I'm interested in the truth about your conclusions?

And yet you provide no conclusions even after my asking you for them and asking you to go ahead and approach it via any doctrine you choose as long as we get back to the point of depravity and [free] will where this discussion began



So, if I'm reading you correctly, I'm not interested in Biblical truth, I have biases and misconceptions about Biblical truth, and you've presented me with an opportunity to learn Biblical truth from you? Yet you're not proposing to be my teacher? And you think I've never studied the doctrine of the fall of mankind?

Are you self-taught meaning you & the Holy Spirit as you seem to propose or partly propose, Cameron? When you speak of Biblical doctrines, who taught you these doctrines? It seems fair to suppose from what you've said that it was not some Reformed teacher teaching Calvinism.

You say you've considered the fall. What did you learn?

Pelagian heretics learn little to nothing from the fall of man and corruption of all creation.

Simple question: what changed in man due to sin? You profess to having studied the subject, but can't answer a simple question. The answer to the question is the basis for many different doctrines. For instance, what is depravity? What is the extent of depravity? What is man capable of spiritually? How do we know?
To understand what is necessary for God to be reconciled to Himself, one must understand what was broken in man to begin with. You say you've considered the fall. What did you learn.

I'm not interested in your methods of discussion nor am I interested in the circuitous route you're intent on taking to get to the point. And I think you know this and it's a reason for your pushing for the indirect route. It prevents real discussion about the original topic.

So, I'll go back to the beginning and rest there; your version of depravity is very similar to if not the same as the Calvinistic version of Total Depravity. Where it may or may not differ is undetermined and can remain there.

All done.