koreahog2005 states:
The non-Christian’s conscience may be functioning from birth, but every part of him is affected by depravity, including the conscience. The Holy Spirit must activate and calibrate it during the time of special conviction. At that time the effects of depravity are temporarily counteracted so that the non-Christian can self-generate a bias from an unbiased position (equipoise) and surrender to Christ in faith and repentance.
It seems to me from the statement you wrote above and from the other replies which you wrote after this to "averagefellar" that you do not hold to traditional, classical Calvinism. This in itself would certainly account for the view you are espousing.

The biblical teaching about man is that every thought, word and deed is governed by his nature, both antecedent to and subsequent to the Fall. 1) Adam was endowed with a disposition which was inclined toward God; not a "neutral" disposition of which the Bible never teaches. Either one is a "bondservant" of righteousness or else a "bondservant" of sin. Since Adam had no predisposition to evil, then he obviously, being created in the imago dei and "very good", he was inclined to righteousness. The Lord God, the pre-incarnate Christ, would never have walked with Adam in the garden if that were not true. What you have brought up in your reply below is the issue of the "origin of sin", which certainly Geisler has no answer. No reputable theologian who has ever lived has ever offered an answer to this question for it is one of those incomprehensible mysteries. Geisler's attempt to give an answer by relegating true Calvinists to the pejorative class of "high (hyper) Calvinists" is not only inaccurate but woefully weak.

Secondly, subsequent to the Fall and consequent of it, man possessed a depraved nature, i.e., every thought, word and deed was evil continually. (Gen 6:5; 8:21) Fallen man has no moral ability to do that which is good nor does he have the desire to do so. Man cannot love God nor do good because he will not. And man will not love God nor do good because he cannot. Unless a man is "born from above", "drawn", "taught of God", "made alive", etc., he will never come to Christ because he CANNOT. (John 6:44)

Thirdly, the Bible knows but one work of the Spirit which enables any man to be inclined toward God, love Christ and hate sin. This is called, "regeneration". But in the way of Wesley and Finney you want to bring in something called "special conviction", whereby an individual is said to brought to a place of "unbiased equipoise". Of this you wrote:

At that time the effects of depravity are temporarily counteracted so that the non-Christian can self-generate a bias from an unbiased position (equipoise) and surrender to Christ in faith and repentance.

I would sincerely like to see the relevant biblical texts which teach this. From my reading of Scripture and that held by Augustine, the Reformers, Puritans and many others in between, a sinner is by nature bound to that nature and naturally, irresistibly sins, hates God and all that is good. Even the Gospel is foolishness to his ears. Natural man is obsessed with idolatry and with wiping out the very thought of the one true God from the face of the earth. And it is such men that the Holy Spirit "makes alive"; giving him a new nature. This new nature is one which is predisposed, inclined to God and thus the "new birth" drives/draws a man infallibly and irresistibly to Christ whereby he abhors that which he sees in himself and the sin he has committed, repents of that sin and flees to Christ, begging for the remission of his sins and desires to be reconciled to God in Him. There is no "unbiased equipoise" to be found. For all men only choose that which is according to their nature. (Matt 7:17, 18)

ALL whom God has predestinated to salvation in Christ will infallibly come to Christ. (Jh 6:37; 10:16, 27) They are made willing. (Ps 100:3) Without regeneration, no man CAN "choose Christ". Salvation is by grace not choice. (Rom 9:14-24)

Lastly, I would commend to you James Harrison's excellent critique and refutation of the theology of Norman Geisler in the following article: Chosen But Free?.

In His Grace,

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]