Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

[Rufus]

I don't have any problem with those verses teaching that the wage of sin is death,
and you don't realize that saying God's love is "conditional" implies MFW/the ability to satisfy such condition.
I believe God's love is eternal/never changes, whereas you believe God hates nonelect humanity;
it looks like we will have to wait until heaven to learn whose view/bet is correct.

You have a serious reading comp problem because all those passages I cited are not teaching what you claim. They are teaching that God hates, loathes, despises unrepentant sinners.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

"Metanoia" in Greek means : meta=after; noeo=to think.

There may be an emotional part, the "mind/heart" in Greek culture was the very center of man's being.

when you go from a state of unbelief, to a state of belief. that is the process of repenting.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

Believing is not based on evidence. There's people who believe men can get pregnant when all the evidence in the world says otherwise. "Blessed is he who believes and has not seen"

Faith IS based on evidence.

you trust what you see is true based on how you perceive the evidence

 

[Rufus]

It maybe TULIP LITE, and covert, but at its core it has the same horrible central tenet.

Some are selected before time began and it was decided to leave others in their sin, and Jesus did not die for them only for the selected.

But it is all good, because there are still loads of people in Heaven.

And besides and apart FROM your personal, visceral, knee-jerk reaction to the Doctrines of Grace, can you give us any theological/biblical reasons why those Doctrines are "horrible"? What would be the judicial basis for your opposition to the Unconditional Election particularly or the five Doctrines of Grace, generally?

And while on the subject of Grace, can you tell us what you believe is the chief end (or goal) to God's magnificent grace?

P.S. BTW...the "loads of people" in Hell far exceed the number in Heaven.

 

[HeIsHere]

when you go from a state of unbelief, to a state of belief. that is the process of repenting.

Amen!!

I say unto you that likewise more joy shall be in Heaven over one sinner that repents, than over ninety and nine just persons who need no repentance.
Luke 15:7

 

[Rufus]

Salvation has always been by grace through faith. What's that got to do with God's command to believe His word or die?

It seems to me you are one who, like @Cameron143, think believing (an act of our will) is the same as faith (an empowerment of God by means of the word)

If I could create reality by believing something, I would believe there is the tastiest lasagne sitting before me right now as I'm very hungry so I'm off to get lunch.

I never once stated what I just bolded above. Pay attention, please. I'll say this one more time:

1. You obviously do not believe that God's grace is efficacious.
2. You do believe that God provides only mere opportunities for salvation and not salvation itself.
3. You believe that man must choose to take advantage of those opportunities in order to become saved.
4. Therefore, the salvation buck stops with man's choices.
5. So, when a man believes, this must mean that his volition was the efficacious cause of his own salvation.

If not number 5, then what precisely is the efficacious cause to man's faith and repentance?

 

[Magenta]

Amen!!

I say unto you that likewise more joy shall be in Heaven over one sinner that repents, than over ninety and nine just persons who need no repentance.
Luke 15:7

Yes, God's Word says His loving kindness is meant to engender repentance in us. Of course you deny that any personal spiritual revelation is required for someone to come to belief and yet any interaction between God and man on that level does require a spiritual awareness which the Bible is quite clear on = the unregenerate not being in possession of those faculties. Spiritual discernment is required and they lack it. But 1 Cor 2:14 is just one of many verses that get mangled and twisted to mean something other than what they actually say by the FW crowd.

Man is born in transgression and sin (Psalm 51 verse 5, + 58 verse 3), dead in transgressions (Ephesians 2 verse 5), his heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure (Jeremiah 17 verse 9), held captive by a love for sin (John 3 verse 19; John 8 verse 34), so that he will not seek God (Romans 3 verses 10-11), because he loves the darkness (John 3 verse 19), and does not understand the things of God (1 Corinthians 2 verse 14), nor can he change himself (Jeremiah 13 verse 23). He suppresses the truth of God in unrighteousness (Romans 1 verse 18) and continues to willfully live in sin because he is totally depraved; this sinful lifestyle seems right to men (Proverbs 14 verse 12); they reject the gospel of Christ as foolishness (1 Corinthians 1 verse 18), and their mind is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. (Romans 8 verse 7).

 

[Rufus]

Belief does not come from an act of our will, this is correct.

No amount of volition will save either.
Yet, belief, does not come from God either.

So, what or who is the final and efficacious determinant of man's salvation, since it isn't God (the Provider of Atonement) or Man (the Responder to God's provision? The devil, maybe?

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

Yes, God's Word says His loving kindness is meant to engender repentance in us. Of course you deny that any personal spiritual revelation is required for someone to come to belief and yet any interaction between God and man on that level does require a spiritual awareness which the Bible is quite clear on

This is where misinformation comes in. No one denies this, It is his lovinkindness and his words.. faith come by hearing and hearing by the word.. the word could be the written word or the spoken word..

= the unregenerate not being in possession of those faculties. But 1 Cor 2:14 is just one of many verses that get mangled and twisted to mean something other than what they actually say by the FW crowd.

and this is where error is put into place

God WILL not regenerate a man who is still under th epnalty of sin

the wage of sin is death

as long as one is not yet justified. His wage is death

regeneration CAN NOT come until a person is justified.

once the penalty of sin is removed, a person by the mere act of this justification. no longer separated from God. hence born again.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

So, what or who is the final and efficacious determinant of man's salvation, since it isn't God (the Provider of Atonement) or Man (the Responder to God's provision? The devil, maybe?

God made the decision and determination of who is saved

He who believes John 3, John 5, John 6 and many others)
He who sees and believes (john 5 and John 6)
He who recieves (john 1)
He who hears and believes (eph 1)
through faith (eph 2)

 

[Rufus]

RE: John1:11-13

We can look at more context, but this is a start:

NKJ John 1:11-13:
11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.

• More literally, He came into His own things, and His own men/people did not receive Him
• "receive" is a compound word - thus an intensified version of the word @cv5 has been defining from Strong's. It means to "to take into close association, take (to oneself), take with/along" (BDAG Lexicon). It is an active voice verb so, Jesus' own people did not actively take Him into close association with themselves. They didn't take Him to themselves. This is a picture of [intense] rejection of Jesus Christ. It's interesting how this intensified word is used here intensifying their rejection. See why in the next verse.

12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:

• Some of Jesus' own people did receive Him.
• "receive" is the non-intensified version of the word and my and @cv5 posts defining it are here. Some of Jesus' people did receive Him. This is also an active verb so some of Jesus' people did actively receive Him, take Him, even "choose" Him as the supplied Lexical definitions show, even though "choose" is not the primary meaning.
• This active "receive/take" is used in parallel with the also active verb "believe" so these two verbs are explaining one another, and John is thereby making clear that to actively receive is to actively believe.
• John interesting tells us that Jesus gave these active receivers/believers "the right - the authority - to become God's children. I won't take the time to define "children" here, but it has some very interesting meanings. This right/authority to become something needs to be carried into the next verse.

13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

• The verb here being translated in the past tense is an aorist verb. The problem with the aorist verb translated into English is that it is timeless and must be translated based upon contextual markers. The contextual marker I see is "the right/authority to become (also aorist) God's children" which does not say He made them (past tense) God's children. So it's not just me saying this, here are some other translators dealing with this aorist verb and not seeing it as past tense:
  • NET John 1:13 – children not born by human parents or by human desire or a husband's decision, but by God.
  • NIV John 1:13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
  • NLT John 1:13 They are reborn-- not with a physical birth resulting from human passion or plan, but a birth that comes from God
• IMO The NET and the NIV are the best renditions of what the Text says. John1:13 does not tell us they were born but elaborates what they will become per John1:12. Jesus gave them the right/authority to become God's children, "born...from God".

These verses do not put rebirth before receipt and belief. They do just the opposite. Some actively received/believed in Jesus > Jesus gave them the right/authority to be born from God.

In context, the active receipt looks to be based upon the witness/testimony of John the Baptist:

NKJ John 1:7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe.​

​

Through the witness/testimony of John the Baptist receiving/believing in Jesus the Light the Logos/Word was made available to Jesus' own people.​

​

Some intensely did not receive Him through John's witness.​

​

Some received/believed in Him through John's witness.​

​

This is what we're told here.

But this verse does:

John 11:26
26 and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"
NIV

See also Jn 4:14 and 3:1-14.

Sinners do NOT qualify themselves by "receiving/accepting/believing" the gospel (Col 1:12).

 

[Rufus]

God made the decision and determination of who is saved

He who believes John 3, John 5, John 6 and many others)
He who sees and believes (john 5 and John 6)
He who recieves (john 1)
He who hears and believes (eph 1)
through faith (eph 2)

So, you're affirming the efficacious nature of God's grace?

 

[Rufus]

This is where misinformation comes in. No one denies this, It is his lovinkindness and his words.. faith come by hearing and hearing by the word.. the word could be the written word or the spoken word..




and this is where error is put into place

God WILL not regenerate a man who is still under th epnalty of sin

the wage of sin is death

as long as one is not yet justified. His wage is death

regeneration CAN NOT come until a person is justified.

once the penalty of sin is removed, a person by the mere act of this justification. no longer separated from God. hence born again.

If God cannot regenerate a sinner, then who can He regenerate? Did you come into this world born a saint?

And why can't regeneration come until [after] a person is justified?

 

[Rufus]

So odd to think one would cry out to God when they do not believe the gospel.

I guess they cry out for no reason at all

Here's a "novel" idea for you: Those who cry out to God do so by His grace -- just like they believe by grace.

 

[Rufus]

I have another question for all your FWers that has to do with another metaphor: In the Shepherd-Sheep relation, who is in control: the shepherd, the sheep or both?

 

[cv5]

RE: John1:11-13

We can look at more context, but this is a start:

NKJ John 1:11-13:
11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.

• More literally, He came into His own things, and His own men/people did not receive Him
• "receive" is a compound word - thus an intensified version of the word @cv5 has been defining from Strong's. It means to "to take into close association, take (to oneself), take with/along" (BDAG Lexicon). It is an active voice verb so, Jesus' own people did not actively take Him into close association with themselves. They didn't take Him to themselves. This is a picture of [intense] rejection of Jesus Christ. It's interesting how this intensified word is used here intensifying their rejection. See why in the next verse.

12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:

• Some of Jesus' own people did receive Him.
• "receive" is the non-intensified version of the word and my and @cv5 posts defining it are here. Some of Jesus' people did receive Him. This is also an active verb so some of Jesus' people did actively receive Him, take Him, even "choose" Him as the supplied Lexical definitions show, even though "choose" is not the primary meaning.
• This active "receive/take" is used in parallel with the also active verb "believe" so these two verbs are explaining one another, and John is thereby making clear that to actively receive is to actively believe.
• John interesting tells us that Jesus gave these active receivers/believers "the right - the authority - to become God's children. I won't take the time to define "children" here, but it has some very interesting meanings. This right/authority to become something needs to be carried into the next verse.

13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

• The verb here being translated in the past tense is an aorist verb. The problem with the aorist verb translated into English is that it is timeless and must be translated based upon contextual markers. The contextual marker I see is "the right/authority to become (also aorist) God's children" which does not say He made them (past tense) God's children. So it's not just me saying this, here are some other translators dealing with this aorist verb and not seeing it as past tense:
  • NET John 1:13 – children not born by human parents or by human desire or a husband's decision, but by God.
  • NIV John 1:13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
  • NLT John 1:13 They are reborn-- not with a physical birth resulting from human passion or plan, but a birth that comes from God
• IMO The NET and the NIV are the best renditions of what the Text says. John1:13 does not tell us they were born but elaborates what they will become per John1:12. Jesus gave them the right/authority to become God's children, "born...from God".

These verses do not put rebirth before receipt and belief. They do just the opposite. Some actively received/believed in Jesus > Jesus gave them the right/authority to be born from God.

In context, the active receipt looks to be based upon the witness/testimony of John the Baptist:

NKJ John 1:7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe.​

​

Through the witness/testimony of John the Baptist receiving/believing in Jesus the Light the Logos/Word was made available to Jesus' own people.​

​

Some intensely did not receive Him through John's witness.​

​

Some received/believed in Him through John's witness.​

​

This is what we're told here.

So good I had to bookmark your post.

 

[Magenta]

And besides and apart FROM your personal, visceral, knee-jerk reaction to the Doctrines of Grace, can you give us any theological/biblical reasons why those Doctrines are "horrible"? What would be the judicial basis for your opposition to the Unconditional Election particularly or the five Doctrines of Grace, generally?

One of her general refrains is that God is unfair to do things the way He does. She does seem to feel
entitled to criticize God in this way. Do you think He finds it pleasing? I am inclined to think not.

 

[GWH]

Maybe these free willers really do believe that the person without the Spirit of God is governed by
the Spirit of God. That would certainly explain why they refuse to accept that the unregenerated
man is blinded to the truth of the gospel while under the power and influence of the wicked one,
taken captive to do his will and unable to submit to God. Though it is true it makes absolutely
no sense, neither does much else of what they say in this regard, so it kind of fits.

MFWers believe the following:

56. M – Gen. 2:17 begins the biblical revelation of God’s moral nature and requirement and is followed up by Gen. 6:5-6 revealing that God is grieved by sin, which truth Paul noted in Eph. 4:30. A main point of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) per Jesus in Matt. 5:20 is that souls should be righteous, and main point of the Sermon on Salvation (Rom. 1-11) per Paul in Rom. 3:21-22 is that righteousness is attained through faith in Jesus as Lord (cf. Acts 16:30-31).

57. F – Deut. 30:19 is one of the clearest statements of the condition of volition in Scripture, and Jesus lamented the sinful misuse of this divine gift in Matt. 23:37. Jesus commanded the correct application of volition in Matt. 7:7 (cf. Heb. 11:6). Paul indicates that God enables sinners to seek salvation in Rom. 2:4, where he says that God’s kindness toward sinners leads them toward repentance. In 1Tim. 2:3-4 Paul taught that God wants all souls to be saved, but he lamented that many resisted God’s will in Acts 28:26-27, like Jesus did in Matt. 13:14-15.

58. W – The short version of Paul’s Sermon on Salvation in Romans is found in Eph. 2:8-10, which states that God’s grace is received through faith, not works, implying that the condition of cooperating (called partnership in Phil. 1:4-5, cf. 2:12-13) with God both by professing Christ at conversion (from first/first day) and by producing the fruit of the Spirit during sanctification (to last/the day of Christ Jesus) is NOT meritorious or a reason to think salvation is earned (Rom. 1:17). However, choosing to disbelieve God or resist His kindness does manifest spiritual separation from His blessings and warrant eventual experiencing of divine wrath per Rom. 2:4-6 (cf. Matt. 23:37).

The concerns of those who accept TULIP—to affirm the sovereignty of God and the inability of souls to earn salvation—are valid, but the solutions are problematic, because they deny or ignore Scripture teaching the love of God for all sinners and the moral accountability of sinners for rejecting the love of God, thereby effectively perverting the Gospel (Gal. 5:6) and impugning God’s justness/righteousness (Psa. 33:5, Isa. 9:7).

The apparent reasons for these errors are threefold: 1. Ignorance of Scripture that contradicts their dogma, such as those teaching the possibility of apostasy, 2. Viewing faith as a meritorious work rather than as the non-meritorious condition of cooperating with God’s grace, and 3. Unconcern about portraying God as unjust by showing favoritism toward the elect. Once these errors are cured by including Scripture supporting MFW, doctrinal harmony is enhanced.

 

[Jackson129]

I have another question for all your FWers that has to do with another metaphor: In the Shepherd-Sheep relation, who is in control: the shepherd, the sheep or both?

Thats kind of a wonkey example to use of course how you are meaning it the shepherd is in control. He's God. But the example is flawed also cause if I have a pet sheep and call its name the silly thing might ignore me. Ever have a dog not listen let alone a cat haha.

 

[GWH]

Ah, so you do believe that the unregenerated person is governed by the Spirit of God. How odd. But what I suspected,
as just noted above, and of course like any of your other beliefs on this topic there is zero Scriptural support for it,
and actually contradicts the great many verses that speak to what and who the unregenerated are.

Ah, yes, despite all your pretenses to the contrary.

Scriptural support for MFW includes the following:

56. M – Gen. 2:17 begins the biblical revelation of God’s moral nature and requirement and is followed up by Gen. 6:5-6 revealing that God is grieved by sin, which truth Paul noted in Eph. 4:30. A main point of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) per Jesus in Matt. 5:20 is that souls should be righteous, and main point of the Sermon on Salvation (Rom. 1-11) per Paul in Rom. 3:21-22 is that righteousness is attained through faith in Jesus as Lord (cf. Acts 16:30-31).

57. F – Deut. 30:19 is one of the clearest statements of the condition of volition in Scripture, and Jesus lamented the sinful misuse of this divine gift in Matt. 23:37. Jesus commanded the correct application of volition in Matt. 7:7 (cf. Heb. 11:6). Paul indicates that God enables sinners to seek salvation in Rom. 2:4, where he says that God’s kindness toward sinners leads them toward repentance. In 1Tim. 2:3-4 Paul taught that God wants all souls to be saved, but he lamented that many resisted God’s will in Acts 28:26-27, like Jesus did in Matt. 13:14-15.

58. W – The short version of Paul’s Sermon on Salvation in Romans is found in Eph. 2:8-10, which states that God’s grace is received through faith, not works, implying that the condition of cooperating (called partnership in Phil. 1:4-5, cf. 2:12-13) with God both by professing Christ at conversion (from first/first day) and by producing the fruit of the Spirit during sanctification (to last/the day of Christ Jesus) is NOT meritorious or a reason to think salvation is earned (Rom. 1:17). However, choosing to disbelieve God or resist His kindness does manifest spiritual separation from His blessings and warrant eventual experiencing of divine wrath per Rom. 2:4-6 (cf. Matt. 23:37).

The concerns of those who accept TULIP—to affirm the sovereignty of God and the inability of souls to earn salvation—are valid, but the solutions are problematic, because they deny or ignore Scripture teaching the love of God for all sinners and the moral accountability of sinners for rejecting the love of God, thereby effectively perverting the Gospel (Gal. 5:6) and impugning God’s justness/righteousness (Psa. 33:5, Isa. 9:7).

The apparent reasons for these errors are threefold: 1. Ignorance of Scripture that contradicts their dogma, such as those teaching the possibility of apostasy, 2. Viewing faith as a meritorious work rather than as the non-meritorious condition of cooperating with God’s grace, and 3. Unconcern about portraying God as unjust by showing favoritism toward the elect. Once these errors are cured by including Scripture supporting MFW, doctrinal harmony is enhanced.