Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

sawdust · 2025-07-18T20:09:15-0400

Faith comes by the word of God. If volition has no place in our lives for deciding what we will believe or not, why bother with it?

You said earlier that you don't see our believing and faith as the same thing yet, here you are again, speaking as if they are the same thing.

To be honest, I find your words inconsistent and therefore difficult to find follow the logic.

Whether one is aware they are making a choice or not is irrelevant. The fact remains there are two options, two paths one can take when presented with the truth and that requires a choice and we make choices with our will.

I think we have exhausted our discussion, don't you?

peace to you brother.

Rufus · 2025-07-18T20:09:37-0400

studier said:

It's simple really. Life precedes faith in the same way sanctification by the Spirit precedes precedes faith (2Thes 2:13) and precedes obedience to Christ (1Pet 1:2).

Re Christ's discourse with Nicodemus, that passage really comes alive once you understand that the "kingdom" is being personified by Jesus. He is the Kingdom! But Nicodemus has no clue at that point. He needed spiritual LIFE -- he needed to be born from above, which according to Jesus doesn't happen by the will of man. When Jesus told this Pharisee that he cannot see (understand) the kingdom of God he was really telling Nicodemus he can't understand who the Messiah is -- who Israel's King is unless he's born again. It's the new birth that dispels the darkness so that one that can comprehend the Light.

The Logos is eminently logical...unlike the sons of men, especially advocates of heresies.

Rufus · 2025-07-18T20:18:56-0400

sawdust said:

It also comes BY GRACE (Act 15:9; 18:27; Rom 12:3; 1Tim 1:14; Eph 2:8-10). Half truths are never substitutes for the whole truth and nothing but the truth!

Re your question about volition: It is of great value to the living! Not so much, though, to the dead.

reneweddaybyday · 2025-07-18T20:32:55-0400

studier said:

those who received (lambanō ) ... as explained in the many, many pages in this thread, as well as above those who actively lay hold of Him.

He gave = (didōmi ) ... it is God Who gives the right to become children of God ... to those who receive the Lord Jesus Christ.

the right = (exousia ) ... (from 1537 /ek, "out from," which intensifies 1510 /eimí, "to be, being as a right or privilege") – authority, conferred power; delegated empowerment ("authorization") - HELPS Word-studies. The one who receives the Lord Jesus Christ is empowered ... God provides all that is necessary ...

to become = (ginomai ) ... Christ is the Son of God ... those who receive the Lord Jesus Christ are empowered to become sons of God ... become something they were not before they received the Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ clarified that it is through faith in Him that believers become children of God ... as opposed to being of the lineage of Abraham.

sons of God = (teknon ) ... sons of God ... not servants, but a Father/child relationship ... and the next verse tells us the one who actively lays hold on the Lord Jesus Christ ... those who become sons of God ... are sons of God by birth

I would appreciate some expansion on these terms (didōmi , exousia , ginomai , teknon ) no rush ...
.

sawdust · 2025-07-18T20:33:22-0400

Rufus said:

It think it is you who needs to read again. I said "it seems like". I never declared you stated what you bolded.

1. I do believe God's grace saves us and I have said it many, many times. Eph.2:8
2. I believe God presents us with truth to which we must respond as that is what He has called us to do Jn.6:29 and He supplies the grace needed so we can respond, in spite of the sin nature that would inhibit a true response, from our soul.
3. I believe there are only two types of men in the world, believers and unbelievers. He isn't choosing to take advantage of anything. He either believes or doesn't believe the truth when shown. The choice is there before him whether he acknowledges it or not.
4. The buck stops with God's promise. He promised to Himself before time began He would endow man with eternal life. Titus 1:2 He conditioned it upon man believing His word. Jn.3:16 It is God's decision to do things that way, man's will has nothing to do with it.
5. A man's will reveals who he is, a lover of righteousness or a lover of darkness. Jn.3:20-21 and Jn.6:45 God's word determines his outcome, life or death.

Time for you to pay attention and try understanding correctly what I'm saying. Whether you still disagree at the end, that's your free will activity.

Magenta · 2025-07-19T00:35:11-0400

sawdust said:

It seems so silly to use the term free will in any other capacity while discussing whether the will of man as is before God's grace as you called it makes it possible for him to choose rightly. That people mix these terms in to what is truly germane simply confuses the matter. But it should go without saying that free will is nowhere in the Bible anyways. People conflate the ability to make choices with having a will that is free to choose God but again, silliness abounds. The colour of socks one chooses to wear has zero to do with the eternal fate of one's soul. It would be nice if people started acknowledging such. Alas, I do not see it on the horizon. Don't mind me. It's just a lament.

sawdust · 2025-07-19T02:34:38-0400

Magenta said:

You are not reading what I said correctly. At no time have I said God's grace makes it possible for a man to choose rightly. What I have said is God's grace hinders the sin nature so a man can make a choice freely from his soul rather than being bound to a decision based on his flesh. If it were not so, we could only make a decision that is anti-God because the flesh is against the Spirit. Gal.5:17

This whole "no free will but can make choices" is pure lunacy. From where do you think you make decisions if not your will?

And once again, having a free will does not guarantee one will believe the truth even after we are saved.

We agree on one thing, silliness does abound and a lot of it because statements like "The colour of socks one chooses to wear has zero to do with the eternal fate of one's soul." has absolutely nothing to do with what I have been talking about.

It would be nice if people stopped to read what is written with some effort to understand what is said instead of making inane comments.

Don't worry, I won't mind you as I normally have you on ignore. Not because I'm not interested in what you have to say, but because your pictures, while very pretty, greatly slow down my pages from loading. My time is short.

grace and peace.

Magenta · 2025-07-19T02:43:56-0400

sawdust said:

Wow. Who knew that God making it possible was not God making it possible. No worries.

Magenta · 2025-07-19T02:56:46-0400

Jackson129 said:

I don't think Calvinism is a denomination. But the fact remains that one of the things people hate about Calvinism is not exclusively taught in Calvinism, so people who have the derangement syndrome of needing to label those who believe what the Bible says about the heart and will and desires of man "Calvinist," and then make up all kinds of other garbage about them as was done earlier today, and I have experienced many times throughout the duration of my time here, just show how ignorant they are on multiple fronts, and for the most part they love their ignorance and have no desire to change. The truth does not really matter to them as much as they want us all to believe, and I see them not only misrepresenting what others believe but misrepresenting themselves as well. I just cant get behind that level of dishonesty. I was looking for post I had flagged from some time ago, but my laptop does not always save documents properly especially because I move my portable HD between devices at home and work... plus I was quite busy at work today and did not have much time for here, though I am allowed to be here otherwise. I add that because I know there are many just waiting to jump on me for anything because of their derangement syndrome.

studier · 2025-07-19T04:15:55-0400

reneweddaybyday said:

Thanks for the questions. They make me look deeper and keep me striving for accuracy.

Thus is a profoundly important piece of Scripture foundational to John at the beginning of His Gospel. I’ll attempt to explain why. IMO it shows the actual logical order of the faith & new birth process which stands opposed to the order some are pushing here.

So, some more detail and I’m going to tighten this up even a bit more in all 3 verses. Since you asked mainly about words in John1:12 I’ll elaborate there if you’d like to skip straight to that verse. I’m going to break this into separate posts so it’s not one long one. I'll flag you at each post.

I’m not going to elaborate “receive” any further since we’ve done that already as you’ve noted.

This is what I see and I’m going to translate more literally taking it through a process first mostly per the Greek word order and then in better English order so we can get the best picture of how this works. I’m also just going to first note the masculine as “men” and then as “men/people”:

John1:11 into the/His own [things] He came, and the/His own [men] him not [they] received/take/.

He came into His own [things] and His own men/people did not receive/take Him
- “came” and “receive” are both aorist indicative verbs.
  - As mentioned before, the aorist is basically timeless. Its focus is the type of action, not necessarily the time of the action. In the indicative mood past action, as these verbs are, past time is commonly included. But the aorist normally needs to be understood from context.
  - So, looking at context here and seeing both verbs as aorist indicative here’s what I see:
    - John is essentially looking at these 2 actions as completed. Jesus came. Jesus’ own men did not receive Him (this is the aspectual type of action I mentioned).
    - There is an order here that is mainly logical but can be viewed as temporal; He came > they did not receive. IOW it’s logical that He had to come before they could receive Him. So even though the aorist is timeless, we can see a logical order and apply a temporality to it.
    - The indicative mood seems simple to see here as past since John is looking back and explaining what happened. But there are times when John does some interesting things with temporality, so I try to never take such things for granted.
- The “and” can play several roles also. It can provide a concept of sequence but I’m cautious of such and don’t normally use it as a primary indicator.
- So, beside the actual information John is providing, John has me paying attention to logical order, which I will keep in mind as I proceed.

studier · 2025-07-19T07:24:08-0400

@reneweddaybyday re: John1:12-13

John1:12 and/but as many [men] as received Him, [He] gave (edōken from didōmi) [to] them authority (exousian from exousia) children (teknon from tekna) [of] God to become (ginesthai from ginomai), [to] the [men] believing into the name [of] Him.

But as many [men] as received (actively received/took/accepted) Him, He gave to them – to the men believing in His name - authority to become children of God
We’ve already looked at “received/took/accepted” and at “believing” and seen that they are active verbs, this the action is being done by these men. No one is receiving for them. No one is believing for them.
I previously mentioned received and believed as being parallel. In a sense they are but it’s better to say they are appositional. So, the men who are believing is identifying the men who received Jesus. What’s interesting here is that received is aorist tense and believe is present tense. I see this as John establishing belief not as a onetime action but a continuous one. It is a characteristic of these men that they are believing men. The men who received/took/accepted Jesus are men believing in Him.
Also, believing in His name is likely idiomatic for identity. They are believing in the identity of Jesus [as Messiah].
Didōmi
- Lexical definitions (In all of these definitions I’m using Bauer-Danker, Greek-English Lexicon of the NT (BDAG) and only posting the main points without all the lexical details):
  - 1. to give as an expression of generosity, give, donate as a gen. principle
  - 2. to give someth. out, give, bestow, grant
  - 3. to express devotion, give
  - 4. to cause to happen, esp. in ref. to physical phenomena, produce, make, cause, give fig. extension of mng.
  - 5. to put someth. in care of another, entrust
  - 6. to engage in a financial transaction
  - 7. appoint to special responsibility, appoint
  - 8. to cause someth. to happen, give
  - 9.to bear as a natural product, yield, produce of a field and its crops
  - 10.to dedicate oneself for some purpose or cause, give up, sacrifice
  - 11. to cause (oneself) to go, go, venture somewhere
  - 12. to use an oracular device, draw/cast lots
  - 13. to grant by formal action, grant, allow,
  - 14. to cause to come into being, institute
  - 15. give up, someth. that has been under one’s control for a relatively long time, give up, give back
  - 16. to proffer someth., extend, offer
  - 17. In many phrases this word relates to an activity or an abstract object, and with tr. freq. determined by the noun object;
- Observations in this verse and what it’s saying knowing other verses and words:
  - To give authority means the giver has authority
  - Jesus explains in GJohn that He has been given authority by His Father – God – and that no man comes to God if not through Jesus. So this giving is in essence through Jesus as intermediary.
  - This authoritative giving of authority is potentially legal in nature but also gracious, generous, etc. Our choice of translation IMO should include such things but most attempt to keep it simple and use one word.
  - Due to the legality included here, I might use “granted” rather than “gave” or insert an adverb like “graciously” before “granted” to bring out the grace/gift and the legal grant. “Give” can include the grace. “Bestowed” is interesting. At the end of this analysis I’ll take a shot at an elaborated translation.
  - However we translate it, it should go well with exousia which is being given.
Exousia:
- Definitions:
  - 1. a state of control over someth., freedom of choice, right e*.g., the ‘right’ to act, decide, or dispose of one’s property as one wishes:
  - 2. potential or resource to command, control, or govern, capability, might, power (on capacity for someth.
  - 3. the right to control or command, authority, absolute power, warrant
  - 4. power exercised by rulers or others in high position by virtue of their office, ruling power, official power
  - 5. bearer of ruling authority
  - 6. the sphere in which power is exercised, domain
- Observations:
  - I would think #1 above would bring up some discussion!
  - This is an interesting word and concept and tie to exactly what Jesus is giving.
  - Some other Lexicons:
    - The Liddell-Scott Lexicon includes “license” in the sense of and along with “warrant” that BDAG suggests.
    - Thayer’s includes “permission”
    - Danker includes “privilege” as a possibility
  - To assist, here are all of John’s uses of exousia excluding Revelation for now:
    - (Jn. 1:12 ESV) But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
    - (Jn. 5:27 ESV) And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man.
    - (Jn. 10:18 ESV) No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father."
    - (Jn. 17:2 ESV) since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.
    - (Jn. 19:10 ESV) So Pilate said to him, "You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you?"
    - (Jn. 19:11 ESV) Jesus answered him, "You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin."
    - We can see that the ESV likes “authority” but chose “right” for John1:12
    - However we ultimately translate exousia here, it seems best to retain the sense of authority, or right. We might also just handle this a bit more idiomatic as Jesus authorized (verbal) or Jesus gave the authorization (to retain the noun sense). In this sense I also think “permission” is interesting.
    - Your input from HELPS seems to bring out some of these same concepts.
Ginomai:
- Definitions:
  - 1. to come into being through process of birth or natural production, be born, be produced
  - 2. to come into existence, be made, be created, be manufactured, be performed
  - 3. come into being as an event or phenomenon from a point of origin, arise, come about, develop
  - 4. to occur as process or result, happen, turn out, take place
  - 5. to experience a change in nature and so indicate entry into a new condition, become someth.
  - 6. to make a change of location in space, move
  - 7.to come into a certain state or possess certain characteristics, to be, prove to be, turn out to be
  - 8. to be present at a given time, be there
  - 9. to be closely related to someone or someth., belong to
  - 10.to be in or at a place, be in, be there
- Observations:
  - John’s use of ginomai looks to be focusing on origin (spiritual birth from God), belonging to God, even change in nature (the new man), coming into existence or being, being created.
Tekna:
- Definitions:
  - 1. an offspring of human parents, child
  - 2. descendants from a common ancestor, descendants, posterity
  - 3. one who is dear to another but without genetic relationship and without distinction in age, child
  - 4. one who has the characteristics of another being, child
  - 5. inhabitants of a city, children,
  - 6. a class of persons with a specific characteristic, children of.
- Observations:
  - I think tekna is interesting in the senses of having God as ancestor, being dear to Him without genetic relationship or distinction in age, having His characteristics, possibly being inhabitants of His Kingdom, being a class of persons with specific characteristics.
  - This is very relational and tied to ginomai makes perfect sense in regard to origin, belonging to God, a change in nature and a new race of men.
  - If John we’re to use huios (sons) it would be focusing more on legal status
So, what I see here:
- A continuing logical order as in John1:11 (leaving out those of Jesus’ own men who intensely rejected Him)
  - Jesus came into His own things
  - All of Jesus own men who actively received/took/accepted Him – those John identifies as actively believing men –
  - Jesus [generously] granted/gave to them authorization to come into being/come into existence/be changed in nature/become children/descendants/dear [spiritual] children of God with His characteristics
  - Born from God John1:13
- To simplify the logical order:
  1. Jesus came
  2. Some of Jesus’ people – men actively believing in Jesus - actively received Jesus
  3. Jesus granted them authorization to become God’s children
  4. God births them

Obviously, we can all work with the data.

As for me, I find it very difficult to say the least to see any opening for modifying this logical order in the language. In regard to man's volition, for many reasons and based in many Scriptures, I have no issue with it being involved in not only the active receiving but also the active believing of men.

Jackson129 · 2025-07-19T08:32:55-0400

I see it this way. I read English I speak it and I understand it.

I use an example. Me and you are by a river I say "I just saw a fish jump " those words dont enter your brain as some scrambled electronic message that then has to be re organized though an anchient Greek codex back into a coherent thought. You just know what I ment. So when I read John 3-16 I dont need to know about the 14 differnt meanings of the word world. I read English I know what it means. God though his infinite wisdom translated the Bible into English in the simplest ways so even the most simple can understand. That way the largest possible target audience is reached. The people who speak and read that language. God didnt translate the Bible into English then make it only understandable to people who passed it through some de coding machine.

When I see people using these various de coding methods like the Strongs thing it just screams I am inventing ways to make scripture mean what I want it to mean. To fit my naritive.

Search

Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

sawdust

Well-known member

Rufus

Well-known member

Rufus

Well-known member

reneweddaybyday

Senior Member

sawdust

Well-known member

Magenta

Senior Member

sawdust

Well-known member

Magenta

Senior Member

Magenta

Senior Member

studier

Well-known member

studier

Well-known member

Jackson129

Active member