I wasn't thinking of you personally, Dream.  I was commenting on another's point.

As to who believes that?  There are those whose theological make-up is quite man-centered opposed to Christ centered, in my view.  Some believe that the Bible's thrust is to point out what man should do, instead of what God is doing.

Now, as to my second point, doesn't it come down to how we are saved?  Whether the focus is on man's ability to choose God or God's choice?  If one believes that we are unable to choose God apart from the work of His Holy Spirit - doesn't that mean that we are saved because of what God does and not what we do?  

I dont know of anyone who beleives that man is able to choose apart from the Holy Spirit. However as I pointed out the Holy Spirit can be resisted.  He does not force anyone

Dennis -

I think that's what it nets out to.  You see, some, like Dream, will acknowledge that no one is saved without the work of God - but then suggest at the same time, that God's work is insufficient in other's lives.  

The Bible tells me that God completes the work He begins.  The Bible tells me that apart from Christ we can do absolutely nothing.  And yet, when it comes to salvation, somehow God's work doesn't work in those who resist and does work in those who come to faith.  The just doesn't compute, to me.  

When I say that some believe we really aren't that bad, I think that there are some that don't fully appreciate the depth of our sinful condition in the eyes of our Holy God.  I believe some don't view our condition is absolutely helpless and that we do not have the ability (in and of ourselves) to respond to God's mercy and grace.  We are that lost.  We are that blind.  We are that deaf.  The Bible tells me that.  So, what changes that?  Our ability to choose?  Or God's work in our stony hearts that enables us to respond to His grace?  And if He begins a work in our stony hearts, doesn't He complete it?

Hope that makes some sense.

Steve

No need to discuss anything with you then as we have no common basis of truth.. That is how cults get started.. They say the bible has been translated wrong.. Anyone can say that and try to push any doctrine thru.. Its crazy..

11 Problems with Libertarian Free Will
 

(1)   According to libertarians, the power of contrary choice means that it is always within the ability of the human will to believe or reject the gospel. But if we have the natural capacity to believe or reject the gospel freely (in the libertarian sense) why is there the need for the Holy Spirit in salvation at all, especially when the gospel is preached?  If you ask a libertarian whether he could come to faith in Christ apart from any work of the Spirit, like all Christians, they must answer ‘no’. In other words, even to a libertarian, it is not “within the [natural moral] ability of the human will to believe or reject the gospel.” There is still the necessity of the work of the Holy Spirit, who is the sine qua non of the affections being set free from sin’s bondage.  Therefore, they are forced to admit that the possibility of the natural will exercising faith would be inconsistent with basic Christianity, since we all know that the natural man is hostile to God and will not willingly submit to the humbling terms of the gospel. We all agree then, that left to himself, man has no libertarian free will to choose any redemptive good, since his affections are entirely in bondage to sin (until Christ sets him free) and cannot choose otherwise. So it ends up that libertarians must believe that, in his natural state (which is most of the time), man’s will is only free in the compatibilist sense, since, apart from the Spirit, he can only choose according to the desires (love of darkness) of his fallen nature. Unless, of course, they can offer another explanation of why one cannot believe apart from the Holy Spirit. 

Furthermore, Christians all affirm that one must first hear the gospel in order to believe since general revelation is not enough to engender saving faith (Romans 10:13-15). But if it is always within the libertarian ability of the human will to believe, as they claim, then again, what purpose is there for the Holy Spirit while hearing? Doesn’t this reveal that they actually do believe we normally exercise choice according to the corruption of nature? [We must note, as an aside, that the Epistle to the Romans testifies that even those who have not heard the gospel know enough from general revelation to condemn them because “what is known about God is evident within them” and they “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom 1:18-20).]  By all accounts, then, no true Christian believes that a person has libertarian free will to believe the gospel apart to any work of the Holy Spirit. 

But, having deduced that libertarian free will must still be true, libertarians believe they resolve this problem by inventing a logical scheme (nowhere found in the gospels) where God grants something to all who hear the gospel called prevenient grace, which temporarily removes the sin nature by allegedly placing sinners in a pre-fall-like state where they have libertarian freedom to either chose or reject Christ, a choice undetermined by any desires or nature. Because the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, to the libertarian, is never sufficient in itself. To grace we must add choice.  While we heartily agree with libertarians in the necessity of preaching for salvation so that the Holy Spirit can germinate the “seed” of the gospel, yet to dogmatize the belief that once having heard that one is forevermore wandering the earth in a semi-regenerate state with a libertarian free will is wild speculation at best. For a biblical example that pronounces the differences among us, consider when Paul was preaching the gospel to Lydia and “the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul” (Acts 16:14).  A libertarian would argue this passage placed Lydia in a pre-fall-like state where she had libertarian freedom to believe or reject Jesus.  But the passage plainly says that God opened her heart to respond, not so that she would hopefully respond. There is not one instance in Scripture when such language is used (where God acts) when people actually refused (see 2 Chronicles 30:11-12; John 6:37; 65). Rather, when God calls a person or opens a heart to respond, the matter is always settled biblically.  Galatians 1:15 asserts that Paul was set apart and called by grace before birth. Can such a call be thwarted? Jesus call to Paul on the Damascus road was certain, not merely a possibility. When a person hears a preacher call for their repentance they can certainly resist that call. But if God gives an inner call no one resists (Acts 2:39; 1 Corinthians 1:23-24; Rom 8:30) nor does he want to. The biblical evidence for certainty in calling, then, is clearly on the side of the compatibilist in all cases the Bible reveals God’s intent. 

If we had libertarian freedom all the time when hearing the gospel then we could theoretically believe the gospel apart from the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit.  Yet I have not yet found one libertarian willing to admit this, for to do so would fall into the heresy of Pelagianism. In the end, we must note, that Scripture defines freedom, not as libertarians do, but as the freedom from the bondage to sin, since we are slaves of sin until the Son sets us free (John 8; Rom 6). Biblical freedom is the freedom to do what is pleasing to God (John 8:34-36; Rom 6:15-23; 2 Cor 3:17) and this freedom from sin is granted in the redemptive work of Christ. Yet the Scripture nowhere says anything about the freedom to choose contrary or apart from our desires altogether.  We either desire Christ or we despise him, and if we choose Him, this is the result of sovereign grace giving us a heart of flesh, not a result of nature itself (John 1:13; Rom 9:16). The real difference between the two views, then, is not really the nature of the will for we all can agree that apart from the Holy Spirit, the will acts according to the affections of its fallen nature in a compatibilist sense. The real difference rather is the nature of God’s grace in salvation (what it does for us). This brings us to the next criticism…

 
Gee, sorry if I was wrong, Dream.  But that's what is being spoken to me.  I will be more careful in the future.

I think we all will resist apart from the work of God.  Everyone would.  The elect will not resist.  They will embrace.