One of the core doctrinal distinctives of many modern-day evangelicals is that the Holy Spirit would never unilaterally come in and change people's hearts against their will. But this is an assumed conviction which arises only from human reasoning or extra-biblical philosophy because none can point to anywhere in Scripture that would give authority to such an idea. Rather, the Bible teaches that the human will is always captive to sin and opposed to God such that no one would ever willingly follow Christ unless God, in His great mercy, supernaturally intervened to change the natural disposition of this heart (2 Tim. 2:26; Rom 3:11-18; 1 Cor 2:14; Deut 30:6; Ezek 36: 26; John 3:1-8; 6:63-65; Eph 2:1, 5). Man would never agree to this. But when he is given a new heart, he willingly follows the Savior.
When our children do something to put themselves in danger of losing their life, what would be the most loving? 1) to let them continue in their folly and choose for themselves or 2) to intervene, against their will, to deliver them from it? Of course #2. We know better than our children what is good for them. This everyday example disproves that tired old argument that man must have a free will for their to be real love. Actually helping someone who cannot help themselves is the most loving thing we can do. And this is what God did for those who were captive to sin. He delivered them. He did not consult our will ... or no one would have been saved.
