Free Republic

It doesn’t have to be either/or....I believe that God brings everyone capable of it, to a point of decision where they have been enlightened enough to make that decision to respond to God’s calling.

Regrettably, it IS one or the other. You've demonstrated Cassian's viewpoint-the "point of decision". This was exactly his position. It is the Catholic's position and the Arminian's position. God opens the heart but people have a right to refuse.

Augustine's position would be that God opens the heart and when one sees and understand the truth, they repent. They do this on their own accord and will. But they repent for they see and understand the glory before them. This is why we say Christians are "called" by God.

This is from Wikipedia:

Common Grace is a theological concept in Protestant Christianity, primarily in Reformed and Calvinistic circles, referring to the grace of God that is either common to all humankind, or common to everyone within a particular sphere of influence (limited only by unnecessary cultural factors). It is “common” because its benefits are experienced by, or intended for, the whole human race without distinction between one person and another. It is "grace" because it is undeserved and sovereignly bestowed by God. In this sense, it is distinguished from the Calvinistic understanding of "special" or "saving" grace, which extends only to those whom God has chosen to redeem.

It is interesting that Wikipedia noticed that Calvinists believe in common grace, but it fails to contrast that with what other Protestants/Catholics believe. What type of grace do you believe in? What is your definition of God grace?

God extends common grace to all men. God calls to all men to enter His rest and repeatedly calls until He gives us over to the corruption of ourselves. No different then the time of Noah, when he preached while building the ark. They heard but could not understand. We are spiritually blinded and dumb.

For others God gives saving grace. This is to His elect. In these cases He has to pound us over the head to get our attention just like Paul. And we're not anything special. We are all wicked and hell-bent. He has chosen the foolish in this world (those who He hits over the head) to confront the wise (the wicked/reprobate/unsaved). In this respect one could say that saving grace plays a part in common grace. Believers bring glory to God by showing the world there is a God of glory. That is why Paul states that believers are "...created in Christ Jesus for good works." (Eph 2:10) We are saved to do the work of God.

Any one of us who is saved is saved only because God opened our eyes and ears by His saving grace. We are to preach to the world and this is God's common grace. Otherwise we would be just like everyone else-hearing the gospel but ignoring it. And if you think I'm wrong, then just answer this simple question, "Who saved you?"

The real question is, "WHY did God save ME?" That is impossible to answer. We can only bow to His sovereign will and love that He did so.

Even as a Calvinist, I don't enjoy being around these type of people. You find yourself constantly walking on egg shells around these people who are too easily offended.

Now I understand why our church carpet crackles every time I take a step. ;O)

Is God a God of confusion, compromise or ambiguity?

The Southern Baptists are finding themselves in the same position the Catholic Church found themselves in with John Cassian (Semi-Pelagius) and Augustine. The Pope just threw in the towel and tried to accommodate both. Eventually Cassian's view won out much to the detriment of the Catholic Church. Augustine view has been abandoned. These are two separate soteriologies; one of choosing God (Cassian) or one of God choosing you (Augustine).

There is NO compromising or ambiguity. You either believe that you make a choice or that God chooses you. It's that simple. Yet people refuse to acknowledge the obvious. That is our nature.

Psa 23:3 He restores my soul. He leads me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake.

All but sums up Perseverance of the Saints. But it's interesting how many people will quote the 23rd Psalms but never think about it.

The Christians must have patience as they discuss scriptural interpretation among themselves.

Just start talking about one of the five items of the TULIP and the Lord will bless you bountifully with all sorts of trials for you to practice patience. :O)

As far as Orthodox Presbyterian, I'm not far from that view myself.

After doing research, they settled on Equality House because of its mission and efforts, not its location across from the Westboro compound, her father said.

Yeah, right.

I certainly don't support the Westboro fanatics. But I don't buy the father explanation. After they "research" Equality House "mission" this is what he wanted his daughter to support? Give me a break.

Referencing the so-called "fathers" can have its place (as in establishing the Christians met on the first day of the week in the 1st century) but they were nor unified in all things

AH HA!!! Now you've caught my evil and sinister plot with our Catholic friends. In actuality, as you so rightfully point out, the early fathers were not unified in all things. Some of them also held some pretty strange ideas. They were, however, unified on basic principles which they formed councils to sort out.

Personally, I don't mind saying that I follow the teachings of the fathers. As a Protestant I'm free to pick and choose what I want to believe from their writings. Their writings are not inspired. It does not measure up to the scriptures. It is no different than if I picked up a concordance to use as reference material. If something doesn't make sense from a scriptural point of view, then I don't have to accept it. The scriptures are the baseline for all truth. But the writings are like going to Sunday School and listening to what others might say.

Our Catholic friends enjoy telling us how they follow the teachings of the church fathers. In actuality they don't simply because their writings are diverse. They pick and choose the ones they want to recite and ignore the rest. Over time, they have modified the teachings the doctrine of the fathers to such an extent that the best they can offer are quotes from the 15th century. Ask them about atonement, justification, etc., and they don't follow what is written by the early fathers. Catholics have a problem in what the Church now believes and what was the early teachings, which often contradicts. Their reasoning for this deviation-knowledge has evolved.

LOL!!! Yes, I think someone needed a little nap. :O)

Pope Urban heard that his niece was with child but that the doctors did not expect her or the child to survive. Pope Urban promised God he would built something great out of his family’s own wealth if his niece and the baby survived. Hence, the depiction of childbirth of a figure representing a papal family ...

Hmmmmmm....sounds like an "Urban" legend to me. ;O)

I'm puzzled by your post so perhaps I wasn't clear. God gave us the scriptures-not the church. These scriptures were handed down to us. All the early fathers did was simply reaffirmed the inspired works. This isn't anything different than what went on for centuries and is documented in scripture (see King Josiah).

What the Catholic Church did was after 1,000 years of accepted inspired works by both the Hebrew and Gentile fathers, they introduced OTHER text that was never accepted as inspired works of God. Not even by their own Church. So Catholics have some explaining to do as to what constitutes "inspired" writings and how the inspire writings of God differs from others.

As far as underestimating God and to what He wants to reveal to who...to be perfectly honest I'm about the very last person on this site you should question about that.

Protestants must either accept that the Church indeed has authority to declare what is canonical and what is not

This is false reasoning. The very reason the early fathers gave for creating the bible is that they understood how we would corrupt it. That is why they made a distinction between what is "inspired" by God and what is not inspired. The Church's position now is that everything the Church say is inspired. This doesn't elevate the scriptures as the final authority but it cheapens it to be no more that what Pope Fred and his group might have said. This is exactly the same issue that our Lord Jesus had with the Pharisees:

Mar 7:10 For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.'

Mar 7:11 But you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, "Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban"' (that is, given to God)—

Mar 7:12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother,

Mar 7:13 thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do."

...

Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,

Mar 7:22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.

Mar 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person."

All men's hearts are corrupt and we will bend the scripture to this corruption. This is what happened to the Pharisees. This is plainly illustrated in what has happened to Catholic teaching over the centuries. The early fathers recognized this and that is why we have the INSPIRED word of God.

Protestants do not recognize the Gnostic gospels because the early fathers didn't. And the early fathers based their Old Testament version on what was handed down by the Hebrew fathers. The real struggled for the early fathers was what to include in the New Testament.

A better question is why do Catholics accept books 1000 years later that the early church fathers rejected as inspired?

BTW-Vlad may be also interested in knowing that several websites which promotes women Catholic priests and leaders also talk about Pope Joan. Also there are carvings by Bernini in St. Peter’s Square depicting scenes of Pope Joan. So the fact is that this started way before the Reformation. It’s patently false to say it’s just Protestants who keep this alive.

You wouldn’t be related now would you? ;O)

From Wikipedia:

References to the female Pope abound in the later Middle Ages and Renaissance. Giovanni Boccaccio wrote about her in De Mulieribus Claris (1353).[4] The Chronicon of Adam of Usk (1404) gives her a name, Agnes, and furthermore mentions a statue in Rome that is said to be of her. This statue had never been mentioned by any earlier writer anywhere; presumably it was an actual statue that came to be taken to be of the female pope. A late-14th-century edition of the Mirabilia Urbis Romae, a guidebook for pilgrims to Rome, tells readers that the female Pope's remains are buried at St. Peter's. It was around this time when a long series of busts of past Popes was made for the Duomo of Siena, which included one of the female pope, named as "Johannes VIII, Foemina de Anglia" and included between Leo IV and Benedict III.

At his trial in 1415, Jan Hus argued that the Church does not necessarily need a pope, because, during the pontificate of "Pope Agnes" (as he also called her), it got on quite well. Hus's opponents at this trial insisted that his argument proved no such thing about the independence of the Church, but they did not dispute that there had been a female pope at all.

There were associated legends as well. In the 1290s, the Dominican Robert of Uzès recounted a vision in which he saw the seat "where, it is said, the pope is proved to be a man." Pope Joan has been associated with marvelous happenings. Giacomo Penzio (fl. 1495-1527), in a work falsely attributed to Petrarch (1304–74), wrote in his Chronica de le Vite de Pontefici et Imperadori Romani that after Pope Joan had been revealed as a woman:

...in Brescia it rained blood for three days and nights. In France there appeared marvelous locusts, which had six wings and very powerful teeth. They flew miraculously through the air, and all drowned in the British Sea. The golden bodies were rejected by the waves of the sea and corrupted the air, so that a great many people died (Francesco Petrarch Chronica de le Vite de Pontefici et Imperadori Romani).

After the Dark Age and Medieval chroniclers, various Protestant writers took up the Pope Joan legend in their anti-Catholic writings. In 1675, a book appeared in English entitled A Present for a Papist: Or the Life and Death of Pope Joan, Plainly Proving Out of the Printed Copies, and Manscriptes of Popish Writers and Others, That a Woman called JOAN, Was Really POPE of ROME, and Was There Deliver'd of a Bastard Son in the Open Street as She Went in Solemn Procession. The book describes, among other stories, an account of the purported Pope Joan giving birth to a son in plain view of all those around, accompanied by a detailed engraving showing a rather surprised looking baby peeking out from under the Pope's robes. The book was penned "By a LOVER of TRUTH, Denying Human Infallibility."[5] According to the preface, the author had been "many years since deceased" and was "highly preferred in the Church of Rome. Alain Boreau attributed the work to Alexander Cooke in his book, The Myth of Pope Joan [6] Furthermore, the preface indicates that the book was first printed in 1602. Even in the 19th century, authors such as Ewaldus Kist and Karl Hase discussed the story as a real occurrence. However, other Protestant writers, such as David Blondel and Gottfried Leibniz, rejected the story.

Interesting, Pope Joan is buried in the Vatican. It seems to me that it would be a simple matter to do a DNA test.

Also, other legends have it that the son became a high ranking church leader.

It’s usually the liberals who start to die on the vine because the resources primarily come from the conservative members. Staying around will only feed the beast. Take the money and run.

And why did you edit the passage which reads in full

I did post it in full earlier. There is no reason to keep posting this passage.

This inclination,which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.

This isn't a disorder. It isn't a "trial" for them. It is sin which they relish. And like any sin, it is open rebellion against God's natural order.

Love the sinner, hate the sin, sound familiar?

Yes it sure does...

Mat_7:11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

Mat_12:34 You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

I can post literally hundreds of passages of God calling us evil, adulterous, etc. At the same time I can post literally hundreds of passages and examples of what our attitude should be to evil. Christians consistently mix charity towards others with acceptance. They are not the same. We hate sin. And while we understand our rebellion, we hate people who do sin-who rebel against God. Including ourselves. We don't love people who go into schools killing little kids. We should want them executed. And God tells us we should want them executed. We work toward helping others come to Christ so that they will be free from sin-not so that they can live with their sin. As Rose Sayer stated in The African Queen: "Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above."

Unfortunately many Christians think we should just accept ourselves for what we are. Hate the sin-love the sinner. I'm OK, you're OK. That is why many Christians become ensnared in the world. We love the things around us-including institutions which publishes false doctrine. Rather than call it out for what it is, they will defend it. This isn't any different than the Pharisees who pretended to be loving and understand all the while they plotted to kill our Lord Jesus.

If the IRS was targeting Tea Party members, how do we know the NSA isn’t listening in on conservative groups under the guise of “extremists”?

I'm not creating any strawman. Look at what the Church's catechism states:

Called to Chastity (2358-2359)- The number of persons with homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They did not choose their condition and they must be accepted with respect.

This isn't anything different from what we're hearing from the gay right activists now-we are to respect them. I'm sorry but I cannot and will not respect sinful behavior. That isn't to say I don't understand why we sin. And I'm certainly sympathetic to their sinful condition because I understand my sinful condition. But do I respect and accept my sinfulness? No. Do you accept and respect your sinfulness? I hope not. How about our condition? Have we reached a point that we accept and respect our sinful condition? One would hope that we are asking God to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Not that we accept our nature with respect.

And that old tired argument that we're just attacking the Church is exactly that-old and tiring.

Tell me again why we don’t need a third party. Is it because:

1) we can’t get anything accomplish through a third party?
2) a third party can’t win?
3) a third party will take victory away from the Republicans and let the Democrats win?

I just don’t buy the arguments any longer.

All sin is depravity. That includes whatever we think and whatever we do. The 10th commandment, “You shall not covet”, speaks directly to the heart’s attitude-not to our actions. If we could keep all the other commandments, not to murder, lie, steal, etc, we still would break the last commandment. That is our desire and choice to rebel against God’s will. As the rich young ruler found out, we harbor these sinful behavior.

In your example of the young woman plead, as you’ve described it, I would agree-it is not lust but temptation. But let’s suppose the young woman pleaded with this man, and he dwelled on the possibility and fantasied about it. But in the end he still said “No”. Would you say that he committed sin simply because he didn’t have sex with this woman? Or would you say that he did commit sin in his heart?

One could reverse your question and ask why you get worked up over abortion and not homosexuality? Sin is sin and people simply don’t want to call it for what it is. That includes abortion, homosexuality or many others.

I will say from day one of my salvation I’ve recognized my depravity. This isn’t false humility or some piety. It’s simply an honest appraisal of myself that God Himself revealed to me as He does with every Christian. And every day I live with this knowledge. I understand exactly what goes on in my head and wonder why on earth would I think something like that. I do things that I wonder why would I do that as a Christian. I feel that I’m a poor testimony to God’s love and mercy, yet I’m saved by His grace. I wish others could see Christ in me but I’m far from that. I wish other non-believers could truly understand the love of God through me and come to that saving grace in Christ. The fault isn’t God but me. Yet God is rich in His mercy in understanding and works through my failures.

What shocks me is that other Christians seem not to 1) recognize their depravity, or 2) simply want to deny it exists. Non-believers call us hypocrites not understanding that we are simply the same sinful creature as they are yet saved by God’s grace. We don’t help the charge when we deny our failures and only talk about God’s love in our lives.

In truth, we are an evil lot of people and God can only deal with our sin when we recognize ourselves for what we are. That is why we are to repent of our sin and ask for His help through Christ Jesus. We are not to ignore it or brush over it. It is then we see the light of God.

But can’t you understand that a homosexual inclination is a temptation, whereas homosexual sex is an action? If someone doesn’t act on a temptation, it is not a sin.

One does not have to act upon their lusts to sin:

Mat 5:28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

There is something in my post that is a bit unclear. While sin exists in all of us, there are degrees of sin. All sin is sin to God and we are all condemn by it unless we turn to Christ and repent. This is what I would, for now, state as general sin. But there are degrees of sin by which our sinning begets other sin which begets other sin.

According to the catechism posted earlier, homosexuality is treated like everything else that one can master and arrest. When I linked it to lying I was thinking in terms of general sin. However, homosexuality as explained in the bible is a sin of severe degree. It isn't something that people are tempted to do like lying. It is something God has given them over to unless His grace so shines on them. People don't arrest homosexual urges. It is depravity at one of it's highest form.

We are all disposed to sin. That is our depravity. To say that someone is “afflicted” with homosexuality is like telling all of us we are “afflicted” with telling “white” lies. We can and will do the worst of sins as Peter tells us.

We cannot cure our depravity-only Christ can. But cure it God will with His help and grace. We are not to excuse sin and we are to call it what it is-our depraved nature. And God wants us to rely upon Him to eradicate as much of this as possible.

It is absolutely astounding to me how many Christians want to admit they have a depraved nature-even when they live with the evidence every day. I suspect it’s because we like to excuse it rather than confront it.

They argue that cutting benefit programs and cutting tax breaks for low- and middle-income families violates Jesus Christ’s teaching to care for those with the least.

I'm surprise Jesus didn't tell that to Pilate.

Is someone who suffers from Kleptomania a sinner because he has a disposition to acquire that which is not his or is he a sinner because he acts on it?

To rephrase your question, "Is someone who steals a sinner?"

The answer is yes.

Sin takes more than a disposition, it takes desire and desire is difficult to discern.

Today everyone has an excuse why they should be excused from judgment. But it doesn't work like that.

Catholic Tradition (2357)

Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience sexual attraction to others of the same sex. Although homosexuality has taken many forms, its psychological source remains largely unexplained. Catholic Tradition (based on biblical texts) has always taught that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered" (Congregation for Doctrine of Faith). They are against the natural law, are closed to the gift of life, and do not proceed from a genuine sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Called to Chastity (2358-2359)

The number of persons with homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They did not choose their condition and they must be accepted with respect. All unjust discrimination must be avoided. They are called to do God's will and to unite their sacrifices to the Lord's sacrifice on the cross.

Homosexual persons are called to chastity and to a self-mastery to gain inner freedom. If supported by disinterested friendship, prayer, and the sacraments they can approach Christian perfection.

Please note the Catholic church does not call it sin. Homosexuals can't even help it the way they are. It is a "disorder" that must be "avoided".

And, you're right, this is at odds with what the scriptures tells us.

Clean what house? The catechisms don’t condemn homosexuality-only that the feelings should be arrested. It doesn’t recognize it as sin. So what on earth is he “cleaning”?

Interesting. Why should Catholics care as long as the Cardinals and Bishops are following the Catechisms of the Church? My understanding is that the official Vatican position is that it's OK to be gay. So why not promote it? Why not lobby for it?

This really is more of a country club than it is a religion.

In this way churches can turn what looks like a negative into a positive

If the ABS didn't see anything wrong in what the BSA did why is this turning a negative into a positive? Truth is they know exactly what it means and purposely are ignoring the issue for whatever reason. I'd not only leave the BSA but the ABS.

Whenever we attempt this discussion it seems people want to argue about the Lord and say that we’re following Nestorius. The issue isn’t with our Lord Jesus, as we would both agree that He was fully God and fully man.

The issue really rest with what precisely was Mary? Some would make her out to be much more than a child of Adam-claiming her to be divine, holy, an ark, etc. In actually, she was nothing more than a sinner used by God, no different than Moses, Abraham, or Paul. Mary states so herself that she was in need of a Savior. And our Lord Jesus equates her to the same role as other believers. This seems to be lost on our Orthodox and Catholics friends.

With all due respects to Saint Cyril of Alexandria, there is no biblical basis for praying to Mary.

I remember in the last hurricane how meteorologists (not broadcasters) were standing out in ocean noticing how the tide was rising so fast around them with the incoming hurricane that it was difficult for them to remain standing.

But your distinction between meteorologist and research scientist is a valid one. I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not a research scientist on tornados. But apart of understanding the formulation of tornados, which can be done without driving in front of them by 100 yards, I fail to understand the value of this type of research. And Twister is one of my favorite movies.

Common sense and weather people are mutually exclusive. How many of them stand out in hurricanes, tornados, blizzards, etc.? And this isn’t only on Fox News.

It seems Erasmus is alive and well, but so is Luther, and God is on his side.

Amen. It seems the Luther and Calvin's great Reformation lives on even if it's not in Switzerland. ;O)

I'm afraid I'm too old to be interested in the kind of scholastic argumentation we used to bat around in grad school which bore little relation to the struggles of our lives

It doesn't surprise me. Most people aren't interested in "scholastic argumentation". How juvenile. Once upon a time people were interested in understanding and applying sound doctrine. Augustine was so shocked by his erroneous teachings that he recalled most of his writings and had them burned. Councils were convene to ensure accurate teaching and to highlight heresy. Luther risk everything, including his life, for correct teaching. So did John Hus, Calvin, and Wycliffe.

Today this attitude has gone by the wayside. In our socialization of Protestant Christianity, which started with Finney, it's all "YAWN", "YAWN". No more councils on heresies. No more "arguing" the scriptures. You have your beliefs and I have mine. People want to believe what they want to believe. It's no different than the Samarians who thought they could worship God wherever they wanted-they didn't need the temple. That was a relic of the past and who care what the scriptures stated. During Jeremiah's time they were prophesying in God's name while idols sat in the temple. God loves us-right? He's going to fight for us-right? That was the message they taught. After a time, the corruption of the scriptures take hold and no one really care how far they have drifted.

People on a number of occasions have stated to me that I'm completely wrong on free will. But yet they'll say they don't understand the paradox. One has to wonder if they don't understand, how do they know I'm wrong? But at the risk of sounding arrogant, there is no greater truth that I know than this-that free will is a lie of the worst sorts. Of course, then again, all I did was read the arguments handed down by the fathers.

Two questions:

Was Jesus God? YES

Was Mary His Mother? His physical mother yes.

Now two questions:

Did our Lord Jesus exist before Mary?

Was Mary a child of Adam?

The whole Church ...agreed she is truly unique among humans.

As far as bearing our Lord, I would say yes. But that is as far as it goes.

So, it seems logically necessary that she be more blessed than any other human.

Do you think that Mary is more blessed than you? Look carefully at that statement and in it is reflected a certain remorse. Can you look at what God has done for your life and say that you are just as blessed as Mary?

God used Mary to accomplish a purpose in His plan, but that is all. But as far as being blessed by God so are we all. God shows no partiality and each believer has a role to play. That is not to say that we should think of ourselves more highly than others. To be sure some of these roles are great while most are small. Some of these roles led to great honor while others led to suffering, persecution, and death. But God is acting out His will in each one of us to accomplish His plan. In the end, as Mary stated, we are all in need of a Savior.

"God-bearer" and "Mother of God" have two different connotations. While Mary was indeed the God-bearer, she was NOT the mother of God. God is eternal. Mary is not. We pray to the eternal Father. We do not pray to Mary.

Mary was indeed blessed but no more than anyone else who walks in the ways of the Lord.

Psa_128:1 Blessed is everyone who fears the LORD, who walks in his ways!

One would hope they could see this heresy.

She became the Mother of God,

Do you mean the mother of the Father or the mother of the Son?

According to our Lord Jesus:

Mat_12:50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

I would sincerely recommend and respectfully request you reexamine this heretical doctrine.

ckilmer-“I defined “free will” as the choice to sin or not to sin.

GPH-I’d becareful with a conclusion like this. Paul himself suffered greatly from the sin nature still present in his members (as do we all)

Exactly. Our wills, while they may be "free" from sin and death, are corrupt. We still will not follow God or, worst yet, we construct idols or false doctrine that we justify as following God. Peter warns us not to suffer as a murderer or gossiper. Non-Christians sees our hypocrisies and question whether Christianity is real, not understanding this foundational truth-that we are all corrupt. And this isn't helped by repeating that we have "free will" and Christians decide to follow Christ. The most obvious response is why don't we follow Him then? We are repeatedly warned as Christians that our hearts are deceitful. They cannot be trusted.

We must continue to reexamine if we are in the faith. Not that we lose our salvation but that we must work out our salvation with fear and trembling to ensure that we bring glory to the Father. We cannot bring glory to the Father by following our wills. We can only bring glory to the Father by doing the Father's will, abiding in Christ, and being led by the Spirit. The simple fact that we want to follow our wills is the dilemma of the Christian.

It isn't that we willfully do the things of God for which He is happy. He has put His Spirit in us to walk in His steps. So it is expected of us to walk as Christ walk-exactly as Christ walked. Yet we quench and grieve the Spirit constantly. We want to follow our wills which are against God's will. As you so rightfully pointed out, Paul states this when he tells us, "Wretched man, who will save me from this..."

But the bright note on this is that God understand this. As Paul finishes, "...thanks be to God through Jesus Christ...". All Christian take comfort in this verse:

Php_2:13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

It is He who is working in us to His work and will. Like Jonah, we may run to Tarnish but God will bring us back to Nineveh to do His will. This is the great love the Father has for us. Thanks be to God that He is forever faithful. He chasten and hasten us, so that He works to conform us to Christ's image. Those who the Lord loves, He reproves. He leads us into paths of righteousness for His name sake. It is this principle for which we should give thanks.

Our Lord Jesus did not follow His will. He followed the will of the Father (”Thine will be done.”, “Not my will by thine”, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”
etc.)

There are only two wills, following what is the will of the Lord and following our own corrupt wills. “Free will” implies that we can freely choose to live a life like Christ on our own volition. This is heresy. If one has the power to freely choose to follow Christ, 100% of the time, why don’t they? The answer to that question alone should tell one that free will does not exist.

I would suggest you carefully reread this article. In case there is any mistake on where Spurgeon stood on the issue of "free will", then perhaps it would be best to read the following:

“I feel persuaded that false doctrine, inasmuch as it touches God’s sovereignty, is always an object of divine jealousy. Let me indicate especially the doctrines of free-will. I know there are some good men who hold and preach them, but I am persuaded that the Lord must be grieved with their doctrine though he forgives them their sin of ignorance. Free-will doctrine—what does it? It magnifies man into God; it declares God’s purposes a nullity, since they cannot be carried out unless men are willing. It makes God’s will a waiting servant to the will of man, and the whole covenant of grace dependent upon human action. Denying election on the ground of injustice it holds God to be a debtor to sinners, so that if he gives grace to one he is bound to do so to all. It teaches that the blood of Christ was shed equally for all men and since some are lost, this doctrine ascribes the difference to man’s own will, thus making the atonement itself a powerless thing until the will of man gives it efficacy. Those sentiments dilute the scriptural description of man’s depravity, and by imputing strength to fallen humanity, rob the Spirit of the glory of his effectual grace: this theory says in effect that it is of him that willeth, and of him that runneth, and not of God that showeth mercy.

Any doctrine, my brethren, which stands in opposition to this truth—”I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,” provokes God’s jealousy. I often tremble in this pulpit lest I should utter anything which should oppose the sovereignty of my God; and though you know I am not ashamed to preach the responsibility of man to God—if God be a sovereign, man must be bound to obey him—on the other hand, I am equally bold to preach that God has a right to do what he wills with his own, that he giveth no account of his matters and none may stay his hand, or say unto him, “What doest thou?” I believe that the free-will heresy assails the sovereignty of God, and mars the glory of his dominion. In all faithfulness, mingled with sorrow, I persuade you who have been deluded by it, to see well to your ways and receive the truth which sets God on high, and lays the creature in the dust.” — C. H. Spurgeon

Holder ...said officials would seek procedural and possibly legislative changes to protect journalists’ First Amendment rights."

This from the person who went judge shopping to obtain the warrant. I can't believe how dumb journalist could be to have attended this briefing.

Everything is always "the problem with America". Look what is happening across the globe, in Europe, Asia, Indonesia, etc. What we're really seeing is a spiritual darkening. This is not an isolated instance.

Michael Voris is a devout Catholic who really believes that they simply have listen more to the Pope and everything will be hunky-dory. The real problem is the hardness of the heart.

Luk_18:8 I tell you, he will give justice to them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?"

The problem with the judges (who were appointed by God) wasn’t that they worked out poorly. It was that the people couldn’t/wouldn’t remain faithful to following God. Once things got bad enough, they cry out and God would have to rescue them and try to set them right. One would have thought they would have got the message. Instead, they decided that if they had a king they wouldn’t even have to cry out to God. The king would solve their problems.

How typical.

An excellent and thought provoking article. I just wonder about several issues. First, not all the Psalms are uplifting and joyous. I can’t imagine them being sung loudly. The second is that in our church the only time the congregation does not sing is during collection or communion. This is when the choir sings. This seems reasonable and appropriate since people normally are rustling around. Aside from these two issues I find I really agree with his assessment.

Two of my pet peeves: 1) clapping at the end of an especially moving song sung by the choir, and 2) repetitive verses sung over and over and over.

There’s a saying that I heard many years ago that the church is like Noah’s ark. You can only stand the stench inside because of the storm outside. I think that is so true.

You may wish to recall that not only did King David cheated with Bathsheba, but he then turned right around and murder her honorable husband just to cover up his sinfulness. This is a reflection of the condition of our human behavior. There were very few people who had a heart for God like David. We can’t judge others because we ourselves have this same wickedness in our hearts.

There is a price to be paid for any sin that we may commit. The Lord hastens us and chastise us, just as He did with King David. That doesn’t mean God love him any less or that his salvation was in danger.

The problem we have is that we have an over inflated sense of self worth. We think like Laban that if God will avenge Cain, He'll do so much more for us. There is a piety in us that think that God really, really needs us and wants to have fellowship with us. The Jews thought like this during Jeremiah's time even though they had stock the temple with idols. God loved them. He didn't really care if they baked cakes to the queen of heaven. It was a way to appease everyone and, hey, it was fun. Jeremiah was a crazy old coot that wanted them to betray the king and surrender to Babylonia. Surely God wouldn't bring His wrath on the "chosen" people.

There is a reason why God constantly refers to us in scripture as "perverted", "wicked", "unrighteous", "adulterous", "evil", on and on and on. It isn't because it's old school because Christ Himself referred to us this way. So did the writers of the New Testament. Nor should it be looked at as God was really, really angry and didn't know what He was saying. Or that He's a grouch. Rather it is an objective analysis of precisely what we are. We are unrighteous. We are evil. We are perverted. God is perfectly right and very correct in calling us these things because that is what we are. Most of us just don't like to hear it as your post indicates. And even after we're saved we don't like to think about ourselves in these terms. But Peter knew that we could slip into our old habits and become "murderers" or, just as bad, "gossipers".

The only reason that we come to Christ is because God opened up our eyes and ears to see and hear the truth about our sinful nature. But if we can't understand this relationship, if we can't understand our wickedness and our need of a Savior, then we need to question whether we're saved at all. If we don't understand that we're evil, then what is the purpose of even needing a Savior? Quite frankly, this is what repentance is all about-wanting to be healed from our unrighteousness. And the only way we understand that we are evil, is that God reveals it to us. He brings us to repentance. This is the basic principle of Christianity-understanding and turning away from our wickedness. Not perfectly, but a little bit at a time. And Christians are more than happy to receive the Lord's discipline because this is how we know that we're loved by God.

But we must recognize our sinfulness and cry out to God to be healed.

Psa 30:2 O LORD my God, I cried to you for help, and you have healed me.

Psa 30:3 O LORD, you have brought up my soul from Sheol; you restored me to life from among those who go down to the pit.

Psa 30:4 Sing praises to the LORD, O you his saints, and give thanks to his holy name.

Psa 30:5 For his anger is but for a moment, and his favor is for a lifetime. Weeping may tarry for the night, but joy comes with the morning.

Joy comes in the morning.

Bottom line: either God is Love and we are free to choose him or not, in our own act of Love, or God is a slave driver and, no matter what, what have to go to his heaven and live with Him for ever. In other words, freedom means choice, and choice permits the “no” to God. And thus there is hell.

Poor logic and completely Pelagian. There is another "choice".

God is NOT a slave drive. God is love, beauty, and perfection. God calls to us and keeps calling... and calling... and calling. We, in our nasty rebellious state want none of it. God gives us commandments to help us. We don't want to obey them. God gives us a promise land. We want to worship idols. God sends His Son. We kill Him. This is what man is all about and is there any question that we should not go to hell. In fact, given our history we would rather be in hell then to be with God in our natural state.

Make no mistake, God purposely has to change our hearts to follow Him. This isn't a "choice" because we would choose not to. And even when God has changed our hearts we half heartedly follow Him. He has to work out His will in us. Yet God is satisfied by His own goodness to welcome His prodical sons and daughters home and cloth us with His righteousness, put rings on our fingers and kills the fatted calf. This is the great love of the Father. He SAVED US and He who began a good work in us will complete it.

Psa 23:3 ... He leads me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake.

...

Psa 23:6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, and I shall dwell in the house of the LORD forever.

This is the grace of God to the glory of His name. Christians can only stand back and say, "Why me?" There is no answer to that question because we don't deserve anything.

Seems like they should have made this decision years ago. What they should be asking themselves is why didn’t they.

I’d like to give the Pope the benefit of the doubt and just say that while he might know Vatican II perhaps he should spend a bit more time in the scripture. ;O)