"The closes you can come to substantiating such a claim..."

But the whole idea of a reductio ad absurdum is that the conclusion can't be substantiated by the truth.

"This is where your radical view of human depravity gets you..."

I'm fairly comfortable going out on this limb because the Apostles and Prophets are out here with me. Your grammatically impossible interpretation of Mt. 7:11, has long ago been exploded beyond any hope of further use.

"1 they are not dead in the brain-dead sense that hyper-Calvinists like yourself seem to think they are and"

Not even actual hyper-Calvinists think anyone is brain dead.

"the Holy Spirit is at work in the world convicting and drawing all men to accept the free offer of grace found in Jesus Christ."

The Bible says that whomever the Father draws will be able to come to Christ, and Christ will raise up everyone who is able at the last day. It also says many are called, but few are chosen.

"They also invited whosoever wills to accept Jesus. "

Indeed they did, by commanding them to repent and be baptised for the remission of sins. Omni-benevolence hadn't been invented yet.

"Then why does it rest on creeds that came long after the New Testament was written?"

It doesn't, but if you're going to argue with Reformed doctrine, you'd do well to look at the creeds since they summarize what Reformed people believe. In reality, the creeds are very handy, because they agreed with me about what Scripture says. I got along without them for a couple years before I knew they existed. Seeing they agreed with Scripture, I said to myself, "Self, these are handy summaries of your beliefs."

"I never denied this."

But observe how you deny it again in the next two sentences.

"How such a notion that man is brain-dead is in clear contradiction with the notion of faith unless one redefines faith to mean something other than what the rest of the worlds means when they use the term."

How ironic that no Reformed person believes this. For a further study on what Reformed people believe about being dead in sin, see Romans, particularly 1 through 6.

"But the truth is that you have a will that is free whether you like it or not"

It's not a matter of whether I like it. I'm in the image of God; I'm not an original in any way, therefore there's no LFW. Moreover, the Scripture repeatedly asserts reality on the matter of human freedom, even in the face of humanist requirements for responsibility.

This whole passage is still a complete red herring. It doesn't say anything about "brute fact" freedom.

But Abraham didn't judge God's metaphysics as to why their held responsible.

"Also, faith's definition relies on volitional will being employed, otherwise the word looses its meaning and we are talking about something else."

But that means it's man's effort. Therefore, you see it as a work. The Scripture says we are born not by willing or running.

"So do we, so your statement is a red herring. In both cases, however, man is free to choose. Whether to follow the law or whether to accept grace."

If you see this as a red herring, I don't think you've understood me. If anyone is in Adam, they will be condemned for their sins. If anyone is in Christ, they will not. If a man is in Adam, then good deeds and bad deeds are all sins; a man in Christ is finally free to do good deeds that aren't sins, since they are done according to faith in Christ. I don't believe in freedom in the sense of man's neutrality to do good or evil. The unbeliever isn't free to not sin. The believer is free to not sin (though he carries the flesh with him as in Rom. 7).

"In this case that faith must be placed in Christ or else their works (which are good"

They're good, but they're sin?

"He isn't. He is praised for being holy. He is not praised for what he does, he is praised for who He is."

Likewise, men go to heaven for who Christ makes them.

"Except for those of us who didn't/don't. Sorry, readily accessible evidence of believers who have chosen to trust"

Exactly. And how do they do that if they are dead in sin? That's what this discussion is about: how is it that men begin to have faith.

"No, it depends on what you preach."

However you want to say it. Christ's, Peter's, or Paul's preaching contained no lies, but lies are often on the lips of modern preachers.

"The tone of the discussion has nothing to do with the intellectual dishonesty displayed by you when it comes to recognizing and addressing the biblical and logical contradictions inherent within your man-made theological framework. "

You serious? I'm giving you the honest truth of what I think Scripture says. My man-made theological framework came from the New Testament. I suppose you're right if you mean, the man Christ Jesus. Since I'm being dead honest, I'm left to wonder who's actually intellectually honest here.

Here's a little intellectual honesty: This all started with you denying that Reformed people believe one of their most basic doctrines; that is, that men are dead in sin. You didn't consult any reputable or notable Reformed work to make this claim. But, once I did, the core of your argument was undermined. As a consequence, you declare that I'm a liar.

Wait a minute... another problem:

"to hold a man culpable for something he has no control over and never has had control over is, quite simply, morally wrong. Is this something we invented? No, Abraham Himself says of God "surely the king of all righteousness will do what is right".

This passage has no bearing whatever on the matter of why those of Sodom and Gomorrah are responsible for their actions. We know now that there were not 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 righteous. We, who have the New Testament, should understand that the whole city was found to be not in Christ.

"If faith is not seen as a work under Calvinism, then why is one of the main tenants that it must be supplied by God lest man be able to boast in participating in his own salvation?"

I suppose if it's not supplied by God, one could boast of superior wisdom, but not work. Either way, in the LFW view, it's a volitional decision, and consequently a work.

"If faith is really not seen as a work under Calvinism then there would be no controversy around the notion that man may freely believe or not the free offer of salvation made to all men."

The controversy has more to do with what freedom is. We see man as either in law, or in grace; in Adam, or in Christ; in sin, or in newness of life. One who is dead in sin can only sin because nothing proceeds from faith, for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Christ said he came to set us free. We shouldn't claim, like the Pharisees, that we're already free, but one must in according to LFW idea of faith.

"If men are as dead as Sproul says"

then they will ONLY choose to reject Christ. (yes, I am repeating this point because I don't think you understand it)

"holding someone responsible for something they have no control over is incoherent and wrong"

Why is God praised for doing good? He can't help it. He's praised for being true, yet the Scriptures cannot lie. He is praised for his nature. Likewise men are saved for their regenerated nature, not their better deeds.

"we are lying to their faces"

That depends on how you preach. Preach like Christ, Paul and Peter, then you won't have that problem.

"who does not actually love everyone"

Scripture says He does, and sends rain on the wicked and the righteous alike. It also says, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your gracious will. ... No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son decides to reveal him." I'm not going to reconcile it by ignoring a load of Scripture. There's a much more logical way of doing so.

"I find it amazing that hyper-Calvinists can wrap yourself with a doctrine that contains so many logical contradictions"

But why be so arrogantly condescending, and angry about a calm discussion?

WCF says, "By this faith, a Christian believes to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein." In other words, faith is plain believing, and not working. But, you say, "Calvinism DOES see faith as a work." Here, you say that Calvinism sees faith as work, and that we've redefined it. But we say to everyone that faith is mere believing, a purely passive human function.

When the Calvinist makes the reductio ad absurdum, "you're making faith a work," it's in reference to the LFW idea that man is neutral (that he can do good or evil), and that man has only to do the one good thing, that is begin to have faith. Faith is therefore redefined by LFW as a decision on man's part, and God owes regeneration to the man on the basis of his faith; that is, God saves a man because of something in him. That is, God is represented as regarding one man above another. Therefore LFW sees faith as a meritorious work, though they won't admit it. (I accidentally made this reductio on my own system back when I was a LFWer.)

But the Calvinist says man cannot do good prior to regeneration (because he is under law, and not under grace. That's why Paul can say "whatsoever is not of faith is sin."). As the WCF says, man "became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body" (not maximum wickedness, but defiled in all parts) and that this was "conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation."

When you say "if people are dead in the way Sproul seems to think they are, then they can do _neither_ good nor evil." You begin a line of argument against Calvinism that isn't, in fact, against us because we believe men are dead _in sin_.

Here's the Calvinist's understanding of the Gospel: All men are sinful, not only because of deeds but because of their corrupt (fallen) nature. Because man is corrupt in his nature, no amount of good- or bad-doing (that would be to seek justification by works and therefore is blasphemy against Christ) will change man in his nature. This kind of change can only be the work of a Creator. Therefore, all men are commanded everywhere to believe the Gospel, and no man can be saved apart from this, for there is no other name given under heaven whereby we must be saved. Moreover, we are told in the Scriptures that faith comes by hearing, and Christ says that His sheep hear his voice, so we must preach to everyone that there is no salvation but by faith in Christ; if they are His, they will hear. There's no working in there, nor is there any idea of any man being better than another. Nor is it complicated; it's pretty much "except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."

This practically works out like this: We say to unbelievers, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

Opposing you or me? WCF opposes you, if that's what you mean. You said Reformed people believe such-and-such. I said no, they believe thus-and-so, and proved it with the WCF. The opposing viewpoint is disreputable, because it consistently misrepresents us (for proof, read the reputable and notable post called "Does regeneration precede salvation?" and note how its statement of our beliefs is unreconcilable with the statement in the WCF).

And I post that having "read recently in this reputable and notable work," the Westminster Confession of Faith.

And I post that having "read recently in this reputable and notable work," the Westminster Confession of Faith.