Well, no, it does not say the choice was not made in heaven.
[Deu 30:11-12 NASB20] 11 "For this commandment which I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it far away. 12 "It is not in heaven, that you could say, 'Who will go up to heaven for us and get it for us, and proclaim it to us, so that we may follow it?'
All it says is that the choice is available to them to make 'here and now'. But that is hardly the point. God did choose it before the foundation of the world, but that doesn't deny that we do indeed make a real choice in the matter.
When you think about it, this is exactly what Calvinists say -- that the Holy Spirit has to proclaim the gospel and make them hear it and believe it ... this is exactly what verse 12 says... "who will go up to heaven for us and get it for us and make us hear it so that we can follow it."
So far, I have insisted, (though I too have heard from more than one of a Calvinistic or Reformed persuasion that it is different for those pre-Calvary), on the principle given in Romans 8 (and elsewhere), and have yet to be persuaded otherwise, that the heart of flesh is incapable of choosing Christ. That does not imply that they do not choose, but that, as
@Clare73 says, the unregenerate freely and ALWAYS choose according to their inclinations. I do not agree that there are, nor even have been, 'other ways' to submit to Christ, nor to God's law, but by the Spirit of God.
It's odd to me because people will believe anything. If you ask anyone if they want to die or live forever, the vast majority would say they want eternal life. Then tell them how and some will say "no thanks" but some will try anything. You can accidentally get people to believe. If you take a look at some denominations (like Word of Faith, for example) who essentially bribe people with prosperity doctrines, they convince a lot of people that its in their best interest to believe. So the notion that people can't be convinced it is in their best interest to believe the gospel seems far fetched to me.
Additionally, this is one reason why I say that the connection between faith and righteousness is indirect. Faith actually qualifies us for adoption as descendants of Abraham. God promised Abraham that his descendants would inherit the righteousness he was credited with. So while faith does lead to righteousness, it is indirect rather than direct with faith first qualifying one for human adoption before proceeding to righteousness. You don't need regeneration or the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to achieve human adoption. So then it is God's promise to Abraham which motivates Him to make the believer righteous, not their faith. Calvin worried that a depraved person couldn't influence God... well he doesn't... God's own promise motivates God.
And, but for the Grace of God, man always chooses death.
If you asked 10 unsaved people if they could choose between life or death, which do you think they would tell you they want for themselves?
But as to faith: Again, our faith, in a sense isn't even ours —if it is salvific faith, like that of Abraham. It is the work of the Spirit of God within. Only God has the understanding and knowledge to know just what it is we are committing to, and the nature of the sin we are abandoning, and what the work of Christ entailed in accomplishing the salvation of those who were at enmity with God. Salvific faith is generated by the Spirit of God, not by the desire or will of man. And only the Spirit of God can keep it. And only God can make anyone faithful. The facts of the weakness, ignorance, rebellion and desire for self-determination, and the foolishness of man stare us in the face daily. Only the Spirit of God can make our repentance, submission and obedience, and our love and dedication real. Man is incapable of generating salvific faith.
The "core of the Gospel" to put it in human terms, is the Grace of God. There has only ever been one Gospel.
Abraham didn't have the Spirit of God within, and never did for his entire life. It was something promised to his seed. He was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, not in his heart.
[Gal 3:14, 16, 19 NASB20] 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. ... 16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as [one would in referring] to many, but [rather] as [in referring] to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. ... 19 Why the Law then? It was added on account of the violations, having been ordered through angels at the hand of a mediator, until the Seed would come to whom the promise had been made.
Monergism doesn't say that man does not choose, but that his choice in salvation is subsequent to the Spirit of God transforming him.
Fair enough. But even a broken clock is right twice a day. Just as Adam violated his nature to perform sin without ever having or knowing the sin nature, a person who has the knowledge of good and evil can once in a while choose good. We all know this is true because we've all known unsaved people who have done 'good' things, loved on people, or done what was right now and then. I know some unsaved people who seem like better Christians than some Christians I know.
Synergism, contrary to some vague definitions, claims that the work of God alone is not enough to effect salvation, but that it is increased or bettered, added to, by the will of man. Assuming synergism, some quite logically conclude that the eternal destiny of the believer-to-be is "100% up to you".
If I had oatmeal or pancakes for my daughter's breakfast, and I didn't tell her these choices, but let her try to come to a decision on them on her own, yes that could be true. But God didn't do that, just as I as a Father wouldn't do that. God told us the choices and commanded us to choose between them. Just like me telling my kid you can have oatmeal or pancakes. My child can't then choose steak and eggs (so no "free will") but she can select between the two options I've given her. But I could give a hint and say "FYI, the pancakes are amazing... choose those!" This is also what God does... "I have set before you life & death, the blessing and the curse.... so choose life."
The meaning of words always depends on context. You can't use the context of
Romans 8:3 to interpret the meaning of 2Co 5:21.
You most certainly CAN! In fact, you can use the whole of Scripture in interpreting the meaning of any part of Scripture, and particularly those parts of Scripture that the same Paul wrote. And no, I'm not saying that the context of
Romans 8:3 is all one need consider in a proper exegesis of
2 Corinthians 5:21.
What I mean is if you want to know what a word means in the context of 2Co 5:21 you can't use the context of Romans 8:3 to determine the contextual meaning of a word in 2Co 5:21. What I'm saying is that Clare absolutely tried to use the context of Romans 8:3 for a proper exegesis of 2Co 5:21. She used a word that ONLY appears in Romans 8:3 and not in 2Co 5:21 (peri) to say that the best exegesis of 2Co 5:21 is that "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin" should be rendered "He made Him who knew no sin to be an offering for sin" when the word translated as offering (peri) only appears in Romans 8:3 and does not appear in 2Co 5:21. Further, that peri doesn't even mean 'offering,' it means "concerning" or "about" but the translators insert it as "an offering" to conform it to an English sentence structure though the word "offering" is not even found in Romans 8:3!
She's building an exegesis of 2Co 5:21 on a translation insert that literally doesn't actually appear in either verse! I think that is actually called eisegesis! Yikes!
You are monumentally wrong here. I assume no such thing concerning the regenerate man. Daily I am rudely reminded of it.
As to the unregenerate, they do not merely have a dominant nature, but a pervasive heart of flesh that is at constant enmity with God. You have not shown otherwise. You only assert that they can somehow do something to please God, contrary to
Romans 8. Our peace with God, as opposed to enmity, is through the work of Christ, not by the will of man.
Romans 5:6 says we were still powerless when Christ died for us. UNABLE to choose God, no matter how much we may suppose our choice was submission.
For what it's worth, let me give you what God has shown me about Romans 7 leading into Romans 8.
[Rom 7:15-25 NASB20] 15 For I do not understand what I am doing; for I am not practicing what I want [to do,] but I do the very thing I hate. 16 However, if I do the very thing I do not want [to do,] I agree with the Law, that [the Law is] good. 17 But now, no longer am I [the one] doing it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good [is] not. 19 For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20 But if I do the very thing I do not want, I am no longer [the one] doing it, but sin that dwells in me. 21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22 For I joyfully agree with the law of God in the inner person, 23 but I see a different law in the parts of my body waging war against the law of my mind, and making me a prisoner of the law of sin, [the law] which is in my body's parts. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.
My wife and I were discussing this one day and she said "what a cop-out! Paul is saying, "It's not me, the devil made me do it!" that's not fair." After pondering that a few seconds, I said that actually Paul isn't saying "It's not me, it's the devil" ... he is saying "It's not me, it's me." He recognizes two natures within him, but he chooses to "self identify" his real, true self as the righteous inner man and not the sinful outer flesh. Satan is called the accuser of the brethren... how many people "identify" themselves as their sinful outer flesh by saying things like "I'm gay" or "I'm a drunk" or even the Christianese "I'm a sinner." Paul goes on to say with his mind he is serving God, but with his flesh, serving the law of sin. He goes on in Romans 8 to talk about setting our mind on the things of the spirit so that we do not obey the desires of the flesh. It occurred to me that is exactly what Paul just demonstrated in Romans 7 by identifying the "real" version of himself as the one who wants to do good and the false version of self - sin in him - which wants to do evil. Does that mean he never sins? No. But he understands who he is in Christ.
[Rom 2:14-15 NASB20] 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law instinctively perform the [requirements] of the Law, these, though not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
[Gen 3:22 NASB20] 22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out with his hand, and take [fruit] also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"--
Even the unsaved do have a conscience so they are without excuse. They know both good and evil and can make choices.
