Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

[Rufus]

Another Scripture was Jer. 17:9a, "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure."

In order to understand Scripture correctly, one must consider both the immediate context
and NT teaching. The immediate context includes:

Jer. 17:5, "Cursed is the one who trusts in man... and whose heart turns away from the Lord."
Jer. 17:7, "But blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord, whose confidence is in Him."
Jer. 17:10, "I, the Lord, search the heart and examine the mind, to reward a man according to his conduct,
according to what his deeds deserve."

Jer. 12:1, 3, 14, 16, "You are always righteous, O Lord... you see me and test my thoughts about you...
This is what the Lord says... if the wicked learn well the ways of my people... then they will be established among my people."

Jer. 14:10, "This is what the Lord says about the people of Judah, They greatly love to wander...
so the Lord does not accept them; he will now ... punish them for their sins."

Jer. 18:8-11, "If that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned...
And if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it...
So turn from your evil ways, each one of you."

So how does all your windy gibberish change the universal truth taught in Jer 17:9?

And I'm still waiting for your simple, straightforward "yes" or "no" answer to the rhetorical question in Jer 13:23a. Your bosom buddy who is so full of himself could not bring himself to such an answer. I guess he discovered that, after all, he could not change what he is.

 

[GWH]

So how does all your windy gibberish change the universal truth taught in Jer 17:9?

And I'm still waiting for your simple, straightforward "yes" or "no" answer to the rhetorical question in Jer 13:23a. Your bosom buddy who is so full of himself could not bring himself to such an answer. I guess he discovered that, after all, he could not change what he is.

The truths taught in Jer. 17:5-18:11 indicate that Jer. 17:9 is an anomaly--obviously!

Your question ought to be: How can Jer. 17:9 be jibed with the rest of Jeremiah
so that one doesn't deem it to be gibberish?

 

[Rufus]

The truths taught in Jer. 17:5-18:11 indicate that Jer. 17:9 is an anomaly--obviously!

Your question ought to be: How can Jer. 17:9 be jibed with the rest of Jeremiah
so that one doesn't deem it to be gibberish?

Really? So, only the Jews of Jeremiah's day qualified, heh? I suppose the rest of the human race puts its pants or skirts on differently than Jews? I suppose you think Isa 1:5-6 is another anomaly?

And I see you cannot give a straight answer to Jer 13:23a?

BTW, just for giggles I visited chatgpt.com and I asked it this question: Did God save Adam after he sinned? I got three answers for three different religious traditions: Christianity, Judaism and Islam. So...I conclude from that kind of result that the AI isn't capable of thinking through an answer for itself. It can only appeal to history....rely upon what has gone before?

Can you spell underwhelmed?

 

[studier]

Thanks for sharing your testimony, but I am not clear about what you think seems off in:

1. Formerly/at first I was without hope of salvation from meaninglessness and death. (Eph. 3:12b)

I noticed that I cited the wrong verse. Instead of Eph. 3:12, I meant Eph. 2:12.

The context in my mind for this comment includes:

A. [From website L.1, Part II]
Since absolute skepticism or agnosticism is unattainable for thinkers or truthseekers, there are only two qualitatively different ways of answering these questions. One way is by assuming that there is no ultimate “whyness” or purpose beyond survival and avoiding pain, so it does not ultimately matter what one believes or does, because humanity merely evolved from eternal energy/matter, into which it “devolves” at death. You may desire for some reason to survive and to save the world, but if life becomes too painful you may wish you were never born and want to destroy the world, because there is no good reason you ought to be like Messiah rather than like Mania or to be loving rather than maniacal. You may believe and act like evil exists or not, because life is a farce or a continual “King of the Hill” (KOTH) struggle against human adversaries and various other types of adversity, having no ultimate or universal moral imperative (UMI).

The second type of answer is that life is NOT a farce—that existence has meaning, and how one believes and behaves does matter for some non-arbitrary reason. This answer seems more appealing to me and almost logically imperative, although some people appear to prefer the paths of nihilism and KOTH (cf. Matt. 13:14-15).

B. [From website L.2, Part II]
A crisis that threatened a Philippian jailer with death prompted him to ask Paul and Silas the most important question in life: “What must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30) This question is most important, because—as sinful and mortal souls—we need saving from corruption, both moral and physical. We need saving from physical death if we value or enjoy life, and we need saving from immorality or evil-doing if it results in unhappy existence, especially after this lifetime.

A few thoughts:

My intent was not to provide a testimony but to show you how our paths to Christ were very different and then to tie this to your statement:

1. Formerly/at first I was without hope of salvation from meaninglessness and death. (Eph2:12)

How does your path compare to this having come to Christ at so early an age in a Christian family? Did you ever think of being without hope, without salvation?

Also, I'm speaking in the context of this Calvinistic nonsense that's being asserted at every turn. You and I and others see the involvement in the will of man both in Scripture and in practicality. But I'm not sure how the process you went through plays out in practicality.

After I wrote what I did earlier, I was thinking about your points and the Eph Scripture. What ended up being impressed upon me was not so much salvation per se, but hope. Hope is forward looking. This is how it's used in Scripture - what we hope for has not yet arrived as verses like Rom8:24-25 make clear.

IOW it ended up being not so much that the spiritual check I had at first was the point you made, but what I initially focused on when I first read it - admittedly fairly quickly. What I conveyed to you earlier was the meaningless I came to see, and this does come through in the word "hope" more so than "salvation" unless salvation is contextually applied as you've done in your statement - salvation from meaningless.

Tying back to these TULIP discussions, if we can even call them discussions, what you're touching on seems constructive, not for making sense to the opposing view, but for largely ignoring it and discussing all the insights and Scriptures that make the Biblical case.

BTW, pejorative is a fitting word for these so-called discussions.

 

[Rufus]

Another thing God has laid on my heart is to demonstrate how NT doctrine on God's sovereignty is reflected well in the post-Fall Genesis narrative. This the passage I have in mind:

Rom 8:29-30
29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
NIV

In my 2569 which I posted earlier today, I established the fact from two Genesis texts (Gen 2:16-17; 3:15) that God's foreknowledge once again finds its ground in Divine Prerogative and not in his Prescience. Therefore, God foreknew Eve (with a personal, intimate affectionate knowledge) in eternity and predestined her also in eternity to be a godly woman who would become the mother of all the living and who would bear godly seed, ultimately including her Messiah. God conformed her to the likeness of Himself. And then in time and space, after Eve sinned, God graciously called her by reconciling her to Himself (Gen 3:15). After He called her He justified her through her faith (Gen 4:1, 25). And since she had the honor and privilege of being the mother of all the living (Gen 3:20) this surely guaranteed that she will on the last day finally be glorified.

Kinda Kool how that works and how in God's infinite wisdom a precious truth, penned thousands of years after the Fall, can actually be applied to the one God elected in Gen 3:15. My God is an amazing, awesome, incredible, inscrutable Creator and Redeemer. No matter Job wrote what he did in this passage:

Job 12:13
3 "To God belong wisdom and power ;
counsel and understanding are his.
NIV

 

[GWH]

Really? So, only the Jews of Jeremiah's day qualified, heh? I suppose the rest of the human race puts its pants or skirts on differently than Jews? I suppose you think Isa 1:5-6 is another anomaly?

And I see you cannot give a straight answer to Jer 13:23a?

BTW, just for giggles I visited chatgpt.com and I asked it this question: Did God save Adam after he sinned? I got three answers for three different religious traditions: Christianity, Judaism and Islam. So...I conclude from that kind of result that the AI isn't capable of thinking through an answer for itself. It can only appeal to history....rely upon what has gone before?

Can you spell underwhelmed?

Whenever you ask a straight question involving a systematic study of a passage of Scripture,
I am willing--and in fact I already asked whether you wanted to discuss another passage after
Deut. 29:4, for which the pertinent pericope seems to begin with Deut. 28:1 & 15, "If you fully obey the Lord your God... God will set you high above all the nations on earth... However, if you do not obey the Lord your God... all these curses will come upon you." This verse implies that the Israelites are free to obey or disobey.

Next we have the verse you cited/Deut. 29:4, "To this day the Lord has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see
or ears that hear." This sounds like God prevented the Israelites from obeying Him.

But then we come to Deut. 29:9, "Carefully follow the terms of this covenant, so that you may prosper in everything you do." This seems to indicate that the Israelites can follow or not follow the terms.

And finally we arrive at the clearest statement of what Moses meant in Deut. 30:19b-20a, "I have set before you life and death,
blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children might live and that you may love the Lord your God." This obviously teaches that the Israelites are deemed to have MFW.

 

[GWH]

A few thoughts:

My intent was not to provide a testimony but to show you how our paths to Christ were very different and then to tie this to your statement:

1. Formerly/at first I was without hope of salvation from meaninglessness and death. (Eph2:12)

How does your path compare to this having come to Christ at so early an age in a Christian family? Did you ever think of being without hope, without salvation?

Also, I'm speaking in the context of this Calvinistic nonsense that's being asserted at every turn. You and I and others see the involvement in the will of man both in Scripture and in practicality. But I'm not sure how the process you went through plays out in practicality.

After I wrote what I did earlier, I was thinking about your points and the Eph Scripture. What ended up being impressed upon me was not so much salvation per se, but hope. Hope is forward looking. This is how it's used in Scripture - what we hope for has not yet arrived as verses like Rom8:24-25 make clear.

IOW it ended up being not so much that the spiritual check I had at first was the point you made, but what I initially focused on when I first read it - admittedly fairly quickly. What I conveyed to you earlier was the meaningless I came to see, and this does come through in the word "hope" more so than "salvation" unless salvation is contextually applied as you've done in your statement - salvation from meaningless.

Tying back to these TULIP discussions, if we can even call them discussions, what you're touching on seems constructive, not for making sense to the opposing view, but for largely ignoring it and discussing all the insights and Scriptures that make the Biblical case.

BTW, pejorative is a fitting word for these so-called discussions.

Re "How does your path compare to this having come to Christ at so early an age in a Christian family? Did you ever think of being without hope, without salvation?": Not until I was about 18, when a missionary friend became an atheist. And the process summarized by the Top Ten was arrived at after joining CC as I reflected on the logical process of my spiritual journey.

Regarding TULIP, I had studied the P, because the verses urging perseverance were so numerous,
but I had not done a systematic study until I attempted it with you on the Hermeneutics thread,
finally settling on beginning with Romans 1-11 before examining other Scriptures, such as the three
I reposted recently on this thread, which--much to everyone's surprise--supported MFW more that TULIP
when the prooftext is interpreted in context.

Thus, I hope everyone else is learning along with me if this is new for them also.
I view the pejoratives as indications of weak arguments.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

Talk about "bloviating" -- and by someone who doesn't read too swell. I never excluded Adam from Gent 3:21. But I did explain that that text in and of itself does not provide concrete proof that both A&E were saved. And the reason it doesn't is because God's work must be appropriated by FAITH!

The appropriation "by FAITH!" is what has been rejected by some in this thread. Again, do you believe the offering by God was insufficient to cover the sin of both Adam and Eve?

I believe the offering by God was perfect ... sufficient to cover the sin of both Adam and Eve, as well as all who were in the loins of Adam and Eve at the time God offered.

Jesus went to the Cross, and according to most professing believers He died for all mankind w/o exception; yet even FWers will acknowledge that that atoning work needs to be accepted by FAITH before it becomes effective. The same thing is true with God's work of sacrificing innocent animals for a sin covering. Therefore, where is the biblical evidence that Adam manifested any faith in his life?

When God offered the animal whose skins were used to make coats for Adam and Eve, where in Scripture is it indicated that Eve "appropriated by FAITH!"?

God's offering included the sin of both Adam and Eve ... God covered the shame of both Adam and Eve. Both Adam and Eve received the coats ... neither of them rejected and walked away saying "no thanks, I'm good with my fig leaves".

which gets us back to the question I asked you several days ago, Rufus ... who was in the loins of Adam and Eve when God offered His offering for the sin of Adam and Eve and provided covering for the shame of Adam and Eve?

Secondly, you ducked the question I asked about to whose seed does Adam belong: The Woman's or the Serpent's. Why don't you answer the question?

I answered the question:

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

the seed [singular] of the woman is the Lord Jesus Christ ...

do you agree that the seed [singular] of the woman is the Lord Jesus Christ?

Thirdly, yes, Christ is the preeminent seed in the text but he's not the only seed! Multiple godly seeds came from Eve just as multiple spiritually ungodly seeds come from the devil (as I proved recently).

rolleyes ... yes, the Lord Jesus Christ is the "only seed!" of the woman and any offspring from Eve would have resulted from the ovum of Eve having been fertilized by the sperm of Adam, resulting in some male (having seed) and some female (having ova) descendants.

in a pregnancy, the woman does not provide the seed ... woman provides the ovum (egg) ... the ovum (the female gamete) combines with a sperm cell (the male gamete) to form a zygote, which develops into an embryo.

Eve isn't the spiritual mother of just one [spiritually] living person (Christ), for the text says that she would become the mother of ALL the living (Gen 3:20).

The word "living" in Gen 3:20 refers to all descendants of Adam and Eve. The seed of Adam fertilized the ovum of Eve and the results were the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve. Each successive generation after Adam and Eve results from the seed of the father fertilizing the ovum of the mother resulting in son(s) or daughter(s).

In our day and time, when a person is born again, he or she is still physically the son or daughter of his or her father and mother, but spiritually he or she is a child of God ... the born again one is not a child of Eve as you insist is the meaning in Gen 3:15.

But according to your understanding of Gen 3:15, "all the living" would be only one person, i.e. Christ, which means no one could have been saved in the OT. Everyone else in the OT must have been the devil's seed by default.

rolleyes ... what you claim to be my "understanding of Gen 3:15" does not equal my "understanding of Gen 3:15".

And if you had bothered to do your homework, you would have discovered that the term "seed" is also singular for the Serpent; yet, as proved previously the devil has multiple seeds! In both instances of the "seed" in the text the same exact word is used when referring to to the spiritual seed of Eve's and the Serpent's. So, your objection in this regard is quite lame.

I did, in fact, note that seed in both instances was singular. I just did not mention the seed of the serpent because that fact is not germane to your claim that "children of God" are in view when it comes to the singular "seed" of the woman ... not plural "seeds" as you insist the verse has in mind.

You use the plural "children of God" and "children of the devil" as opposed to the singular ... why did you change the singular to plural? Do you not believe what the Author of Scripture has written? ... do you believe the Author of Scripture needs help from Rufus because the Author really means "seeds" (plural) rather than "seed" (singular) ???

On the one hand you claim "I choose to not do the method of eisegesis when interpreting scripture because that is tantamount to adding to God's Word, which is strictly forbidden" ... yet on the other hand you choose to modify the singular "seed" to state it's really the plural "seeds" ... so who is "adding to God's Word"? the one who sticks to the singular "seed" as is written ... or the one who modifies the singular "seed" as is written to the plural "seeds" which is not written?

When confronted by the devil (Matt 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13), the response of the Lord Jesus Christ was It is written. We need to follow in His footsteps as He is our Example. What was good for Him ought to be good for those of us who follow Him.

And your question about Adam and the Lake of Fire, as explained previously, is an argument from silence because I can just as easily turn around and ask you where in scripture does it reveal that Adam made it to heaven.

you make the same assumptions about Eve ... yet I'm the one who is providing "an argument from silence".

fyi ... I believe both Adam and Eve had faith in God ... they both taught their children ... Abel believed God and he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by ithe being dead yet speaketh (Heb 11:4).

you can go ahead and exclude Adam from the equation in your belief that only Eve was saved and only Eve taught their children.

and I can go ahead and include Adam in the equation and that both Adam and Eve taught their children.

P.S. I made several attempts last night to beam up this post but this dysfunctional site was down again. A little later I will prove from scripture that the atoning work of God in Gen 3:21 was not efficacious as so many Christians seem to think.

yeah, the site goes down every now and again.
.