The Biblical Evidence for the Bondage of the Will
The one thing that Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Arminianism and Roman Catholicism have in common is the idea that after the fall man still has the ability to think, do or will spiritual good; that man still has a free will. This is the Helen whom they so ardently love and for whom they do not hesitate to fight as for their altars and firesides.
[13]Such a view shades their whole doctrine of salvation. Therefore, it is extremely important that we carefully establish the biblical teaching that mans heart is spiritually dead because of the fall and so thoroughly corrupt spiritually that the unsaved sinner is dead, blind and deaf to the things of God.
In order to deal with the question of free will we need to carefully define two terms. First, what do we mean when we speak of the human will? Second, how do we define the freedom that is attributed to this will? These questions are important because: (a) Many people assume that the will is some entity that is independent of the human heart; (b) The Augustinian or Calvinistic position is almost always misrepresented by Arminians as holding that men are mere robots. We will see that the Bible upholds the validity and freedom of mans decisions as secondary agents; yet, also teaches that every persons choices are determined by the heart.
Although there are many different definitions of the term will, this term in the context of the debate over free choice or determination refers to volition or a choice of the mind. When people discuss the soul or heart of man they often will speak of different aspects of the soul such as the intellect, the emotions and the will. Indeed, it is proper to think of the will as a function or part of the human mind. Therefore, as we consider the subject of free will we must not separate the will from the intellect or mind as if it has some independent power. The debate over free will cannot be settled unless we understand that the will always decides in accordance with the mind or, as Scripture puts it, the inclinations of the heart (Pr. 4:23; Lk. 6:45; Mt. 7:17, 21). [T]he decision of the intellect is terminated in the will, so the liberty of the will has its roots in the intellect.
[14]
For example, when a man decides to go to the refrigerator to get a piece of pizza he exercises his will. This act of the will, however, did not occur spontaneously or in a vacuum. Before the act of the will the mind received hunger pangs from the stomach; the mind thought about the food options available; the mind decided what food it preferred (this choice was based in part on culture, habit, availability and ease of preparation) and this choice terminated with an act of the will. The will had a prior reason, argument and motivation to get the pizza. If that persons mind did not like onions but did like pepperoni, then that person would never choose onion pizza but rather would always choose pepperoni pizza in such an incident. The mans will was free to choose onions; but his will was subservient to this mind which did not like onions. The mind chose something else instead. Similarly, a lion in Africa is free to eat grass when it is hungry. But it never does so, because lions by nature are carnivorous. Their minds crave meat. A water buffalo is also free to eat whatever it desires. But it only chooses grass because it is in the buffalos nature to do so.
Now that we have an understanding of the will (that the human will is not an independent force but rather always follows the mind) we can begin to understand human freedom. On the one hand we can in accordance with Scripture and experience affirm that man is truly a free agent. As beings which are created in the image of God with rationality and intelligence men are valid secondary agents that are free to make choices. Men are not puppets, robots or impersonal machines. Men have the ability to observe, evaluate, deliberate in the mind and then choose between a, b, c, or d. Men are not coerced by anything outside of themselves to choose something they do not want to choose. If this is a persons definition of free will, then we can agree and say that people have a free will. Unfortunately, this definition is not what the proponents of free will have in mind.
While in one sense we can say that man has a free will (i.e. men are free to choose and are not coerced by outside forces), in another sense we can say that mans will is not free. Men are free to choose whatever they want; but, because of the fall, mans heart or soul is thoroughly corrupt. If, as we have previously demonstrated, the will always follows the mind or heart, then a corrupt heart will not and cannot choose spiritually good things. The will of man always acts in accordance with his sinful nature. This is not simply the opinion of someone like Augustine, Luther or Calvin but is the explicit teaching of Scripture. Jesus says, A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks (Lk. 6:45). A mans outward life is a reflection of what is in his heart. Men speak and do evil deeds because they are by nature evil. Thus, Solomon warns believers, Keep your heart with all diligence, for out of it spring the issues of life (Pr. 4:23). For from within, out of the heart, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders
(Mk. 7:21).
Christ says that the source of sinful thoughts and acts is the heart, not the will. The will carries out the desires, inclinations, habits, etc of the heart. Thus, in the Sermon on the Mount our Lord teaches that a bad tree bears bad fruit (Mt. 7:7). Heart in the Bible refers to the innermost core of mans being. It includes the whole human nature (i.e. the mind, will, intellect, emotions, etc). So, although man is at liberty to choose whatever he desires, since his heart is evil, he will only choose between greater and lesser evil. Those outwardly good deeds that he does do are not prompted by love for God and thus are not spiritually good. Why does the sinner choose a life of sinful indulgence? Because he prefers it, all arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, though of course he does not prefer the
effects of such a course. And why does he prefer it? Because his
heart is sinful.
[15] Boettner writes: Man is a free agent but he cannot originate the love of God in his heart. His will is free in the sense that it is not controlled by any force outside of himself. As the bird with a broken wing is free to fly but not able, so the natural man is free to come to God but not able. How can he repent of his sin when he loves it? How can he come to God when he hates Him? This is the inability of the will under which man labors.
[16]
http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/Total Depravity revised.htm
bro ...... it is amazing that anyone can build a doctrine on one "interpretation" of a single text , especially when the interpretation of ONE text contradicts scores of others . 
