Biblical Election and Predestination

[Drew]

If we are without excuse because of natural revelation, then certainly the fact that we do not have total libertarian free will is not an excuse either.

This a circular argument. It pre-supposes the absence of free will. And even then, it is simply untrue to the relevant concepts. No one in the real world is going to agree that a person who is "without excuse" does not have to have the freedom to act in a manner other than the manner that has got him into the state that he is in.

My argument, on the other hand, is not circular. It appeals directly to the meaning of the relevant concepts and draws the logical conclusion. You assume the absence of free will. I, on the other hand, take the concept "without excuse" to means what it means to hundreds of millions - I go with the meaning of the concept.

To be "without excuse" for being in state X means, among other things, that I had the self-determining power not to enter state X. You need to honour the meaning of the concept. What is an excuse? It is a reason why one should be absolved from blame - and the very concept of blame necessitates free will. So if I have "no excuse", I am ascribed blame and therefore had to exercise free will in the first place to even make myself a candidate for blame.

 

[Drew]

The basis of the fact that men are without excuse is directly stated in the context. Men are without excuse because God has revealed his eternal power and Godhead (in nature).

This is an incorrect argument. Here is the verse:

20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitiesâ€â€his eternal power and divine natureâ€â€have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Obviously, the reason for being without excuse is stated in the text. I entirely agree with this. But this does not change the fact that the very concept of having an "excuse" requires a degree of free will to be present. If you deny that this is so, then I guess we are kind of stuck and the reader will have to judge for herself: Is it meaningful to say that a person is "without excuse" for doing X if he had no choice but to do X.

What is stated in the text is the reason why, indeed, men cannot be absolved from blame: the witness of nature. But it is not the basis of being in a state of being "without excuse". Everyone will know that one can be "without excuse" for any of a number of reasons. What grounds the concept of an excuse - what is inextricably bound up in the very concept itself -
is the notion of "blame" or "accountability". To have an "excuse" for doing X means to be in a state where one can say "I did not have a degree of freedom to avoid doing X".

 

[Drew]

Unfortunately, Drew focuses upon individual words, and then typically imports some foreign concept into the context.

This is like saying "when Drew reads the following sentence:

Fred is a man

that Drew imports a "foreign concept" into his reading if he argues that Fred has testicles."

Having testicles is bound up in the concept "man". I am not importing concepts, I am obeying the meanings of words and concepts. In the same way that all men have testicles, all people who are "without excuse" are in a state when they have been ascribed blame. And "blame", by the very meaning of the word entails freedom to have acted otherwise, just as being a man entails having testicles.

 

[mondar]

If we are without excuse because of natural revelation, then certainly the fact that we do not have total libertarian free will is not an excuse either.

This a circular argument. It pre-supposes the absence of free will. And even then, it is simply untrue to the relevant concepts. No one in the real world is going to agree that a person who is "without excuse" does not have to have the freedom to act in a manner other than the manner that has got him into the state that he is in.

My argument, on the other hand, is not circular. It appeals directly to the meaning of the relevant concepts and draws the logical conclusion. You assume the absence of free will. I, on the other hand, take the concept "without excuse" to means what it means to hundreds of millions - I go with the meaning of the concept.

To be "without excuse" for being in state X means, among other things, that I had the self-determining power not to enter state X. You need to honour the meaning of the concept. What is an excuse? It is a reason why one should be absolved from blame - and the very concept of blame necessitates free will. So if I have "no excuse", I am ascribed blame and therefore had to exercise free will in the first place to even make myself a candidate for blame.

Of course you dont want to look at the verse and see why men are without excuse. If you actually begin to look at the whole verse you will see that the phrase "tat they are without excusere" is a result of the first part of that sentence.

Now I know one thing. you did not read what you are saying in a commentary. No professional theologian would have made the simple mistake you are making.

I notice in your reply that you refuse to even acknowledge the existence of the first part of the sentence (verse 19-20). You want to separate the single phrase "so that they are without excuse" and read it by itself and not within the sentence. You want to ignore the stated reason men are without excuse.

Verse 19 says "God manifested it unto them" (ASV) or "God shewed it unto them" (KJV).
What did God show or manifest? Free will? Heheh

What God showed to mankind is right in the sentence. God showed them his "eternal power and Godhead." This is commonly called natural revelation. It speaks not of the gospel, but of Gods revelation of his great power in nature. It is this natural revelation that is the truth that was suppressed in verse 18.

Drew, my guess is that you do not understand how the context is talking about natural revelation. If you understood that part of the context you would not be making assertions that the phrase "so that they are without excuse" is about free will. Men are guilty because they knew the truth but responded to that truth out of their vain imaginations and a foolish darkened heart (see verse 21). Does those phrases in verse 21 sound like free will? You dont actually beieve verse 21 that men have foolish and darkened hearts? Do you?

What mankind did in Romans 1 was done because of the sinful rebellious nature of man. Romans 1 is not even close to a treatise on free will. Drew, I think this conversation is demonstrating how you get human merit and works placed into salvation or justification. Yuo are failing to understand Romans from its first Chapter.

To place free will in this passage is to assert that men are a moral blank slate. Why did men do as verse 18 says "hold the truth in unrighteousness" (hold down are suppress the truth).


*** I dont have much time right now to respond to anything. I am not sure I have the interest either, but maybe later.

 

[GraceBwithU]

You say blah, blah, blah to truth? Come on now.

You edited your post and didn't even ask those questions until after I made mine, but whatever.

Your version of truth not God's.

And you may be correct about the edit...sorry.

 

[GraceBwithU]

You do realize that if repentance is God given, which it is, and if faith is God given, which it is, then salvation has absolutely nothing to do anything with any choice you make, like the Bible says?

I think we all agree that salvation is by the Grace of God. There are many scriptures that prove this.

You have just made some very bold absolute statements. Yet you give no scriptures to support what you are stating. They are based purely on conjecture on your part. You are stating these things because you have heard followers of John Calvin say these things. John Calvin was an attorney first. He could have probably also sold used cars. I am not saying that all attorneys are bad people, but they are trained to lie convincingly. It just goes with the job. You should read the real history of this man. He was not a very nice person.

Anyway….back to the statements you have made.

Rev 2:5
5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
KJV

Lk 7:50 – Here the women has faith in Christ and is saved.
50 And he said to the woman, THY FAITH HATH SAVED THEE; go in peace.
KJV

Rev 2:21-22 - She chose not to repent.
21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.
22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
KJV

Luke 13:3
3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
KJV

Please show me where the Bible ever says that God gives you repentance. He commands it many times. He requires it of us before He gives us the grace that saves us. :

 

[Drew]

Of course you dont want to look at the verse and see why men are without excuse. If you actually begin to look at the whole verse you will see that the phrase "tat they are without excusere" is a result of the first part of that sentence.

This is not correct. I agree with you that the reason that they are without excuse is indeed bound up in what the first part of the sentence. You, on the other, want the concept of being "without excuse" to somehow work coherently with a universe in which men do not have the power of contrary choice. And that is simply not being true to what the very concept of being "without excuse" actually means"

Verse 19 says "God manifested it unto them" (ASV) or "God shewed it unto them" (KJV).What did God show or manifest? Free will? Heheh

This is simply faulty reasoning. I do not, repeat deny the stated reason why men are without excuse. But what you are doing, and the naive reader may indeed fall for this, is making the patently false claim that since we are given a reason as to why men are without excuse, that this tells us what being "without excuse" means. And this is simply not correct.

Mondar is apparently arguing that since we are told why men are "without excuse" - because God given natural revelation - that this is what the concept of "being without excuse" entails or means. This is not correct. If asked someone what it means to be "without excuse", they would not say: "It means to have natural revelatation of God in nature". Instead they would say "It means to be legitimately ascribed blame".

Suppose someone makes the following claim:

Fred should be disciplined for showing up late for work because his alarm clock indeed does work, so that he is without excuse.

Mondar is arguing that this does not imply free will on the part of Fred and would claim that we are told "why" Fred is without excuse - that his alarm clock does not work. He would then (seemingly) say "free will is not the reason he is without excuse - a functioning alarm clock is the reason".

I would hope that I would not have to explain what is wrong here. He is trying to argue that the given reason - that man has been given natural revelation - is constitutive of what it means to be "without excuse". But this is not true - as always, being "without excuse" means to be in a position where one cannot deny one own's accountabilty for something. And, as always, accountability necessitates free will.

A false choice (no pun intended)is being put before you. You are being told that what it means to be "without excuse" is to have special revelation presented to you. And therefore "free will" (which is not even mentioned) cannot be involved.

In short: do not confuse the reason for someone being without excuse with what it fundamentally means to be without excuse. There can be any number of reasons why, for example, Fred is late for work. These reasons simply do not tell us what it means to be "without excuse" - the latter is a concept that stands on its own and necessitates free will.

Men are guilty because they knew the truth but responded to that truth out of their vain imaginations and a foolish darkened heart (see verse 21).

I agree with this statement with the added qualifier that, by the very meaning we universally ascribe to the concept of "guilt", men must have had power of contrary choice at some point in the whole process that leads up to their being declared guilty. I suspect that you will not agree. Let the reader decide.

Does those phrases in verse 21 sound like free will? You dont actually beieve verse 21 that men have foolish and darkened hearts? Do you?

Here is verse 21:

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

I really do not understand your question here. it almost seems that you deny the implicit assumptions that undergird the very meaning of words like "guilt" and appeal to the immediate sentence in which such words are found to "get the definition". That would be incorrect if that is what you are doing.

But I will clearly state that in order to be held as being "without excuse", men must, at some point, have had the power of contrary choice. They must have been able to freely choose to not have their thinking darkened.

 

[JayR]

"Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins."

"When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life."

"In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves, if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth. And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will."

Repentance is God given my friend. Not only that, but this verse further illustrates the slavery of man to sin and the devil. They are literally taken captive by Satan at his will. Their will isn't free, no, not at all. It is in bondage to sin and to the will and lusts of the devil.

"Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. "

This is God's version of truth, His word declares it.

And he said to the woman, THY FAITH HATH SAVED THEE; go in peace.

He is in no way claiming that the faith she had came from her own capacity to believe. He is making it clear that what saved her was the faith that she had, to show that salvation is by grace through faith rather than works. Men are not saved by their own capacities. Not at all. Men are incapable of having faith in God until God regenerates them.

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law."

Saving faith comes from God upon regeneration when He places His Spirit within you and causes you to walk in His statutes and judgments. One of His statutes was to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and believe in the Gospel, something no man is capable of doing aside from the supernatural work of God in giving the Holy Spirit and causing that person to believe in Him. Faith is God given, and salvation has nothing to do with puny human choice, will, or effort, not at all.

 

[Orion]

Thanks for answering my other questions, JayR. I have [possibly] a couple more scenarios.

I would love to be called. I have searched for it for some time now. However, I feel no draw, . . . no desire to "come to God", and even though I would love to understand God, and have that presence in my life, I just don't sense any such draw. Is it possible that I am one of the damned, and no matter how much I would want to have a walk with God, I can't because I'm not called?

Just as an FYI, I don't love sin. I don't like doing it, but like everyone on earth, including you, it happens. That just to say, . . . I have no desire to "continually sin" or "be a slave to sin". Yet, I find no calling. . . nothing that draws me to desire God.

Where do you see me at, in this spiritual journey?

You are not damned...this is one of the biggest flaws in 100% predestined election believers. They promote lose of hope to those that struggle. They read verses of Jesus speaking to His chosen disciples and boast about he was talking to them. You don't love sin because you seek Jesus. He is there for you. Keep seeking him…You are a sinner...so am I...and so is JayR. I read ps 51 almost every day. You might try that yourself. Just keep being hungry and thirsty.

God has not damned you before the world began, but he will judge you one day. It is us that chooses the wrong path that damns us. The book of life is being written in every minute.

Just remember…God so loved the WORLD….not just Sally, Jim and Joe.
:

I appreciate your reaponse, but would like JayR to address it.

JayR, am I one of those who have been "damned from the foundation of the earth"?

 

[JayR]

There is no way for me to know that. God knows.

 

[JayR]

If you don't desire God at this moment, then at this moment you are lost. You don't know Him. You are yet unconverted and unregenerated.

Have you heard the Gospel? I'm not talking about a little lolipop watered down heretical false gospel, but have you heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ expounded upon in it's entirety?

In order to find out, do me a favor. Don't look for answers outside of yourself, but answer me from the heart, what is the Gospel, how is it that God is even capable of forgiving men, and what did Jesus Christ accomplish on the cross?

 

[Drew]

"Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins."

"When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life."

"In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves, if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth. And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will."

Things are not as simple as this. There is a problem of "methodology" in the way the Scriptures are often approached. People take text A, let's say the first of the texts above, commit to having it mean X, when it could also mean Y, and then make highly "forced" arguments about the meaning of other texts that seem to suggest a meaning of Y. A classic example of this is Romans 2. People, even very bright people, come up with what are clearly forced rationalizations as to why Paul does not mean what he says when he describes a coming judgement where those who "persist in doing good" will get eternal life.

The better approach is to come up with a better, perhaps more sophisticated "model" - not awkwardly "force" texts into a model where they obvioulsy cannot fit. In respect to free will, one simply cannot point to these texts and claim things are as simple as "salvation has nothing to do with human choice". Why can't this work? Because of texts that plainly declare the reality of choice:

This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live

The very real problem is this: The texts that JayR has provided only seem to push human choice out of the picture. And, by contrast, the Deuteronomy text explcitly identitifes choice. The texts provided by JayR can work with what I will call the "gift model" - the ultimate justification that a person experiences is a gift from God that nevertheless must be freely accepted. I am prepared to debate this assertion.

By contrast, the Deuteronomy verse is much more constraining. It clearly, at least in a number of translations, identifies choice as being a real issue. And here is where people "play conceptual games" - they try to take the "choice" out of "choose" in order to awkwardly force fit the Deuteronomy text into a model where there is no human choice.

I suggest that this much more of a "forced awkward fit" than would the "gift model" be in respect to the verses that JayR has provided. True, these verses do work with his model where no human choice is involved. But they also work with the "gift model" - I do not have to twist and distort concepts to make these texts work with an element of human choice.

The situation is not the same with the Deuteronomy text which explicitly asserts "free will" (or with texts like Romans 1:20 that cleary, albeit implicitly, require free will as well). One has to distort the very concept of "choice" beyond recognition in order to make this text work with the model that some here are promoting.

 

[JayR]

Actually, things are very simple, and that's why your theology is so skewed.

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ..."

You are a philosopher, not a theologian, and you have been spoiled by philosophy and vain deceit. We aren't called to twist our minds and grasp God's word through our own capacity to understand, doing so is foolishness. "Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and lean not unto your own understanding."

We are called to trust in God with all our hearts with a childlike faith. When you do so, God grants you true understanding, and "You will KNOW the truth, and the truth will SET YOU FREE."

God's word isn't the brain surgery you turn it into, and when you do turn it into that, you are never going to understand it.

 

[Drew]

Actually, things are very simple, and that's why your theology is so skewed.

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ..."

You are a philosopher, not a theologian, and you have been spoiled by philosophy and vain deceit. We aren't called to twist our minds and grasp God's word through our own capacity to understand, doing so is foolishness. "Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and lean not unto your own understanding."

We are called to trust in God with all our hearts with a childlike faith. When you do so, God grants you true understanding, and "You will KNOW the truth, and the truth will SET YOU FREE."

God's word isn't the brain surgery you turn it into, and when you do turn it into that, you are never going to understand it.

Code for: My argument is failing in the light of clear Scripturally-based counterargument. I will therefore resort to a strategy of questioning the very validity of the reasoning that has undermined my argument. Not to mention a more than subtle implication that my "opponent" has been beguilded by Satan. Plus ca change.......

 

[JayR]

Code for, I'm not even reading you anymore, because you are skewed, and you turn God's word into brain surgery. You are proud, and I'm commanded by God to withdraw myself from people like you.

"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. "

You have no truth in you, you argue from a corrupt mind that has been bequiled from the simplicity that is in Christ. You are spoiled by philosophy and vain deceit, and I'm not going to allow you to do the same thing to me, like Scripture commands. I've been there before, and I'm not going back.

 

[Drew]

Is the stuff in the middle of Romans 9 really about individuals being "predestined" to salvation or to loss, or is it more specfically focused on Israel? Arguments pro and con have already been presented. I hope to add to the case that Paul is dealing with Israel in Romans 9. I will assert "parallels" between Romans 9 and Romans 3.

Please contrast this from Romans 3:1 with Romans 9:1-5

3:1 - Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?

9:1-5 - I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, 2that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen

And now, compare Romans 3:3 with Romans 9:6a:

3:3 - What then? If some (***Jews. obviously) did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?

9:6a - But it is not as though the word of God has failed...

And now, compare 3:5-6a to 9:14:

3:5-6a - But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.) 6May it never be!

9:14 - What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!

And now, compare 3:7 to 9:19

3:7 - But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner

9:19 - You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"

If you (JayR) are right in respect that Romans 9 is about individual election to salvation or to loss and not about the treatment of national Israel by God, then this obvious parallelism is pure coincidence.

Let the reader judge how likely that is.

 

[JayR]

"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. "

You prove that this is exactly what you are with every word you speak. You're not concerned about truth or God's glory, you just want to win arguments and flex your intellectual muscles, and it's robbing you of understanding and truth. You're so proud you can't even see it.

 

[Drew]

"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. "

You prove that this is exactly what you are with every word you speak.

The reader who is interested in the truth will consider the arguments that we all have provided. The arguments that I have provided appeal to the Scriptures consistently. Of course, being arguments, they are necessarily framed in the form "human reasoning".

At the end of the day, the responsible reader will consider all viewpoints and come to whatever conclusion he will.

What, specifically, do you think this kind of rant against my character will accomplish? Do you think this strengthens your case about election?

 

[JayR]

You're problem is that you think truth can be dismanteled by the words of a corrupt mind. Truth stands and is unbreakable regardless of who argues against it. You can form thousands of seemingly strong arguments against the truth that are nothing more than philosophy and vain deceit coming from a corrupt mind bequiled from the truth, but at the end of the day, you've failed miserably. I don't need to argue to defend my position, because not only do I know for a fact that it's true because God has revealed it to me, but all those that are of God hear the truth, and they can discern truth from lies because they have the Spirit of truth living within them. You can argue all day long, but you've already failed.

 

[mondar]

Of course you dont want to look at the verse and see why men are without excuse. If you actually begin to look at the whole verse you will see that the phrase "tat they are without excusere" is a result of the first part of that sentence.

This is not correct. I agree with you that the reason that they are without excuse is indeed bound up in what the first part of the sentence. You, on the other, want the concept of being "without excuse" to somehow work coherently with a universe in which men do not have the power of contrary choice. And that is simply not being true to what the very concept of being "without excuse" actually means"

Drew, I think you got caught using a text incorrectly and now want to change who made what assertions. Suddenly now you suggest that I was teaching that Romans 1:20 and the phrase "without excuse" is a demonstration of man having no will. I made no such assertion. I jumped into the thread after reading you making the assertion that free will is demonstrated in the phrase "without excuse."

Maybe I should not be surprised at you twisting what I said to suit your fancy, you often import ithings into biblical text to suit your fancy.

My assertion is that Romans 1:20 does not teach free will. This a a response to your assertion that it does teach free will. Now I did make comments about the context around Romans 1:20 having a concept of mankind being in bondage to sin. But that would not mean I believe that the phrase "without excuse" conveys anything more then what I said....

The term without excuse is directly related to the concept of natural revelation. Romans 1:20 makes no comment on the necessity for free will to make mankind without excuse. That was you importing the concept into the verse.

I am glad we both agree that the reason mankind is without excuse has to do with Gods revelation in nature.

Verse 19 says "God manifested it unto them" (ASV) or "God shewed it unto them" (KJV).What did God show or manifest? Free will? Heheh

This is simply faulty reasoning. I do not, repeat deny the stated reason why men are without excuse. But what you are doing, and the naive reader may indeed fall for this, is making the patently false claim that since we are given a reason as to why men are without excuse, that this tells us what being "without excuse" means. And this is simply not correct.

Mondar is apparently arguing that since we are told why men are "without excuse" - because God given natural revelation - that this is what the concept of "being without excuse" entails or means. This is not correct. If asked someone what it means to be "without excuse", they would not say: "It means to have natural revelatation of God in nature". Instead they would say "It means to be legitimately ascribed blame".

Suppose someone makes the following claim:

Fred should be disciplined for showing up late for work because his alarm clock indeed does work, so that he is without excuse.

Mondar is arguing that this does not imply free will on the part of Fred and would claim that we are told "why" Fred is without excuse - that his alarm clock does not work. He would then (seemingly) say "free will is not the reason he is without excuse - a functioning alarm clock is the reason".

I would hope that I would not have to explain what is wrong here. He is trying to argue that the given reason - that man has been given natural revelation - is constitutive of what it means to be "without excuse". But this is not true - as always, being "without excuse" means to be in a position where one cannot deny one own's accountabilty for something. And, as always, accountability necessitates free will.

A false choice (no pun intended)is being put before you. You are being told that what it means to be "without excuse" is to have special revelation presented to you. And therefore "free will" (which is not even mentioned) cannot be involved.

In short: do not confuse the reason for someone being without excuse with what it fundamentally means to be without excuse. There can be any number of reasons why, for example, Fred is late for work. These reasons simply do not tell us what it means to be "without excuse" - the latter is a concept that stands on its own and necessitates free will.

Drew, thats quite a bit of razzle dazzle to attempt to postulate that free will is inherent within the very definition of the term "without excuse."

In fact one of the difficulties the reader will have is how you constantly switch your meaning of "free will" and a concept of "human will." The unsuspecting reader might not notice it. Calvinists recognize and believe in choice or will. We absolutely confirm that man has will, and makes choices of faith, or not believing. Calvinist deny that man is able to make a free choice, but not that man can make a choice. We need God's power to make a righteous choice because we are too sinful to make such righteous choices. That is the point of the context of Romans 1. Were the choices of the men in verse 21 free? (Notice I do accept that men choose). Or were their choices based upon fain imaginations and foolish darkened hearts? If our choices are so totally free, why does Paul use such language as "God gave them up?"

Now drew, you might deceive a few innocent readers that the terms choice implies a libertarian, totally free ability in man to make a choice, but the scriptures do not teach such a view, and the term "without excuse" does not imply such a view. Man is without excuse even though be be under the control of his own corrupt nature and sinful heart.

You assume huge leaps. You assume that if any internal nature within man is present, that man is not responsible for his choice. The scripture does not teach this. We all died spiritually in Adam (but that does not come until Romans 5). Adam is not our excuse, but Adam is the reason we are in bondage to sin.

Sorry I dont have time to respond to any more, I have to go now.

Men are guilty because they knew the truth but responded to that truth out of their vain imaginations and a foolish darkened heart (see verse 21).

I agree with this statement with the added qualifier that, by the very meaning we universally ascribe to the concept of "guilt", men must have had power of contrary choice at some point in the whole process that leads up to their being declared guilty. I suspect that you will not agree. Let the reader decide.

Does those phrases in verse 21 sound like free will? You dont actually beieve verse 21 that men have foolish and darkened hearts? Do you?

Here is verse 21:

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

I really do not understand your question here. it almost seems that you deny the implicit assumptions that undergird the very meaning of words like "guilt" and appeal to the immediate sentence in which such words are found to "get the definition". That would be incorrect if that is what you are doing.

But I will clearly state that in order to be held as being "without excuse", men must, at some point, have had the power of contrary choice. They must have been able to freely choose to not have their thinking darkened.[/quote]