I agree with Reba in many ways. Certainly the definition is an obvious starting place. Grubal or glorydaz, please define your terms? Is the sin nature something that is so weak that it merely influences us at times? Or is the sin nature something that we are in bondage to, as a slave? (Like in Romans 6:17---not the word servant is doulos--bond slave).
In 1 Cor 2:14 we read that the natural man can not receive the things of the Spirit. How would you take that verse? Maybe some men are super spiritual before they are saved and actually can receive the things of the Spirit?
What is the free will?
I don't have much new to say than what Reba already said, but want to add my voice to hers.
Reba, do you think man chooses to do those lusts because he has to or because he wants to?
Reba answer this already. Her answer was that man chooses according to his nature. I am in agreement with her answer. Of course the nature of man is fallen, so mans will does not desire the things of God. We do not have the freedom to change our nature any more then a leopard can change his spots. Can a man change his own heart?
Would you say this means man is free to choose to disobey God after he's saved or not?
Conversely, do you think the unsaved are never free to obey the conscience God gave all men?
Must the servant of sin or the servant of God always obey his master?
It seems to me that we see examples of both not ALWAYS obeying...thus man has the ability to choose.
We see the ungodly following his conscience at times, and we see the godly still listening to their flesh at times.
As to your question on the unsaved....
The ungodly do have a conscience. Their conscience is fallen, and marred, but they do have a conscience. The unsaved are free to follow their conscience. However, since their conscience is marred, they will never do that which pleases God. A mother will still love her children, and then hate her neighbors children. A mother will give her daughter 3 dresses, and watch the neighbor child go hungry and cold. So even when a person follows conscience, it does not please God. There is no merit before God in the unsaved following conscience. But this is not what the term "free will" is really about.
After salvation, I would agree that man is free to choose his path. He is no longer a slave of his sin nature, but the sin nature is not irradiated. Before salvation, man will follow his heart (nature). Man will do what he loves. He is free to do as he pleases, but man always pleases to rebel from God and go about and establish his own righteousness apart from God.
As you say "the ability to choose" has nothing to do with the term "free will." Man has the ability to choose God, but he never will use that ability because by nature he loves his sin. I have the ability not to eat the pie my wife made (and it is sinfully good), but I have not the desire to use that ability.
This is why Augustine of Hippo prayed "command what you will, and give us the grace to do what you command." Of course Pelagius strenuously objected on the basis of "free will." Augustine expressed the concept of original sin, and then Pelagius denied original sin and affirmed "free will."
The subject of "free will" always reflects our views on the nature of man. Where in the scriptures do we see such a lofty view of the nature of the natural man that man can obey God without God's grace?
