Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

[Mem]

And if we keep this concise which means having to retain your definition of a word then we have the above.

Some of us language types know much of our problems in understanding one another is that when we have different definitions of words in mind, we are essentially speaking different languages. The words sound the same but have entirely different meanings.

Seriously, we need interpreters even among those speaking the one tongue where only God completely understands what the other actually means to say.

 

[Jackson129]

Some hear the gospel and are saved. Another hears the very same words and are not saved. If salvation was simply a matter of audibly hearing, both would be saved.

It has ro do with believing

 

[HeIsHere]

Some hear the gospel and are saved. Another hears the very same words and are not saved. If salvation was simply a matter of audibly hearing, both would be saved.

Obviously.

 

[Cameron143]

And if we keep this concise which means having to retain your definition of a word then we have the above.

Some of us language types know much of our problems in understanding one another is that when we have different definitions of words in mind, we are essentially speaking different languages. The words sound the same but have entirely different meanings.

The first part is fine. The second part I have no idea what you are saying.

 

[studier]

Seriously, we need interpreters even among those speaking the one tongue where only God completely understands what the other actually means to say.

What we can do is what I'm trying to show between @Cameron143 and the rest of us. Our disagreement is very basic. We don't read the same thing when we read "hearing". Our definitions are different. This is why Cameron adds the modifier "audibly" to explain that he has different definitions of the word. We're all going in circles over the definition of a word.

 

[Kroogz]

Being an original language and grammar student of the Word, there are some things there to pinpoint how and why someone is thinking wrongly about what's said.

You're seeing this when you go to Strong's and provide meanings of a few words. What do you think about the word "hearing" in Rom10:17? What do we think Paul means by it? What do you think @Pilgrimshope, @Genez, @reneweddaybyday, @Kroogz and others think it means? Then, what do we think @Cameron143 thinks differently about it than the rest of us?

Hearing (189) (akoe from verb akoúo = to hear) is literally the ability to hear and then can refer to the act of hearing (i.e., listening) and finally to what is heard (as in the previous verse = Ro 10:16).

IMO, much of the language used was a "reflection of the times." Most of the common folks couldn't read and the NT was not completed yet. So most folks relied on a messenger that they "heard" from.

AND.....

Hebrews 4:12
12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Equal Privilege and equal opportunity for ALL.

 

[studier]

The first part is fine. The second part I have no idea what you are saying.

The second part is saying the same as the first part. It just seems confusing because it is confusing when a word is infused with meaning by the infuser.

You might just as well change the meaning of "hearing" to "understanding" in verses where you think it applies. Then we would say it doesn't say "understanding" it says "hearing" and you could explain your rewording with your definition of it and explain your reasoning, which BTW would be your responsibility because you changed the word.

 

[Jackson129]

The second part is saying the same as the first part. It just seems confusing because it is confusing when a word is infused with meaning by the infuser.

You might just as well change the meaning of "hearing" to "understanding" in verses where you think it applies. Then we would say it doesn't say "understanding" it says "hearing" and you could explain your rewording with your definition of it and explain your reasoning, which BTW would be your responsibility because you changed the word.

Hearing and understanding are obviously differnt words with differnt meanings. Anyone can hear how 25×25 is 625 understanding it means you can do the math and show your work as to how you arrived at the right awnser.

 

[Mem]

What we can do is what I'm trying to show between @Cameron143 and the rest of us. Our disagreement is very basic. We don't read the same thing when we read "hearing". Our definitions are different. This is why Cameron adds the modifier "audibly" to explain that he has different definitions of the word. We're all going in circles over the definition of a word.

I gathered that, according to Cameron's definition, 'Faith comes by understanding, and understanding by the word of God.' But I'm afraid that I'd certainly be told, "No, that's not what I'm saying," which I'd only interpret as "Don't bother, you have none of that."

 

[Magenta]

Rather strange the people who preach "inability" are the ones with the "inability" to believe what is in scripture!

You claim everyone hears, which contradicts Jesus. You claim the gospel is not hid, which contradicts Paul. You claim the idea of inability came from Augustine while both Jesus and Paul taught it. You claim God is not fair. You think being given faith is being forced to believe. You conflate the physically dead with the spiritually dead as though they are one and the same and then talk as if you don't. Your denial is pretty deep.

We're all going in circles over the definition of a word.

The world is blinded to the truth. That doesn't mean they can't see the words. When they hear the gospel preached it
is foolishness. That is what they hear. How difficult really is it for you to understand? Far too much so, apparently.

 

[HeIsHere]

Hearing (189) (akoe from verb akoúo = to hear) is literally the ability to hear and then can refer to the act of hearing (i.e., listening) and finally to what is heard (as in the previous verse = Ro 10:16).

IMO, much of the language used was a "reflection of the times." Most of the common folks couldn't read and the NT was not completed yet. So most folks relied on a messenger that they "heard" from.

AND.....

Hebrews 4:12
12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Equal Privilege and equal opportunity for ALL.

Makes complete sense.

 

[Cameron143]

The second part is saying the same as the first part. It just seems confusing because it is confusing when a word is infused with meaning by the infuser.

You might just as well change the meaning of "hearing" to "understanding" in verses where you think it applies. Then we would say it doesn't say "understanding" it says "hearing" and you could explain your rewording with your definition of it and explain your reasoning, which BTW would be your responsibility because you changed the word.

Done so many times, once with you.

 

[Magenta]

Done so many times, once with you.

They don't hear. Too bizarre to see these people arguing that hearing something automatically equates
to comprehension. If that were true, when people spoke in tongues, no interpreter would be required.

 

[lrs68]

Even when we AUDIBLY HEAR the Gospel and Word of God preached, God doesn't speak to us AUDIBLY. The [(STILL SMALL VOICE)] described by the Prophets wasn't AUDIBLE, it was {THOUGHTS, FEELINGS, INTUITION LIKE A GUT INSTINCT}.

It's possible that God could speak to us AUDIBLY or it might seem that way like when we think someone has called our name and we believe that we heard our name called but no one did. I've learned to immediately go to God and suddenly I can sense God speaking to me (much like Samuel had happen to him).

Once I hear my name called that no one around me called and I begin praying or reading the Bible God will either use Scripture or I have seen images while praying that later on I will see in normal daily activity.

When I accepted God into my heart I was paying attention to what was being preached but inside God was speaking to me through thoughts and feelings.

 

[cv5]

As I recall you've said some have believed and some have not.

What is the Gospel you preach?

Correct me if I'm wrong but you're essentially saying [you and probably others have proclaimed the Gospel to them] > "they heard the Gospel since their youths" > some have heard the Gospel and have Faith & some have not heard the Gospel and do not have Faith.

So, some have heard but not heard.

Well we had better add this permutation of hearing and not hearing.
Whatever the flavor of the grammar, it is the INTENT of the heart, FREE WILL and CHOICE that divide the hearers, non-hearers, doers and non-doers, choosers and non-choosers.

[Act 7:54 KJV]
When they heard (akouō) G191 these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with [their] teeth.

The KJV translates Strong's G191 in the following manner: hear (418x), hearken (6x), give audience (3x), hearer (2x), miscellaneous (8x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

1. to be endowed with the faculty of hearing, not deaf
2. to hear
   1. to attend to, consider what is or has been said
   2. to understand, perceive the sense of what is said
3. to hear something
   1. to perceive by the ear what is announced in one's presence
   2. to get by hearing learn
   3. a thing comes to one's ears, to find out, learn
   4. to give ear to a teaching or a teacher
   5. to comprehend, to understand

 

[studier]

Hearing (189) (akoe from verb akoúo = to hear) is literally the ability to hear and then can refer to the act of hearing (i.e., listening) and finally to what is heard (as in the previous verse = Ro 10:16).

IMO, much of the language used was a "reflection of the times." Most of the common folks couldn't read and the NT was not completed yet. So most folks relied on a messenger that they "heard" from.

AND.....

Hebrews 4:12
12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Equal Privilege and equal opportunity for ALL.

I agree with you.

And I'd like to point out that there are times like with this word that translation can be difficult to make but much can be derived from the context. To explain from what you've provided in definition:

• akoē is a noun - so a thing - that we call a "verbal noun" because it can be talking about "the act of hearing (i.e., listening) as you've identified, but as a noun its primary meaning the thing heard, which you also identified.
  • So, there can be some built-in and intentional ambiguity in using akoē meant to make us think and pay close attention to context. BTW, John is very well-known to use such ambiguities.
• Here's how I see Paul using it here:
  • He's speaking about the act of hearing - they are "hearing" - because he makes it clear that a preacher/proclaimer is speaking the Gospel of Jesus Christ and furthermore, he's making it clear that what the preacher is saying is what God has spoken (see "rēma)
  • Paul is also tightening this up by quoting Isaiah:
    • NKJ Rom10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report (akoē)?"
    • So here Paul is using akoē in its objective noun form - what is heard - the thing heard - which you've included in the definition and shown is in this verse.
    • And we can see the "thing heard" ("report" in the NKJ) Paul parallels to the Gospel (and he parallels believing to obeying which @cv5 picked up and included in his recent post).
  • This is some of the power of the ambiguity of a verbal noun used in context.

Though there is no inference of an inability to hear or understand being stated here, I see @Cameron143 inserting it. And it's perfectly clear that he is when he defines "hearing" for us and includes "spiritual understanding" to the definition. I know it's not difficult to pick up that he's doing this, and to know why, but I prefer to have it clearly stated, which Cam did for us.

I also think that it's proper for us all to stick to the Word and actual definitions of words. As I said, we're speaking a different language if we don't define words the same as one another. And we're not speaking God's language if we don't know what He means when He uses a word (which gets us back to the base meaning of homologeō - same speak) which gets us to thinking (you've probably heard RBThieme say we can't think beyond our vocabulary). If we want to think like God, then we need to learn His vocabulary. We're not going to think like Him if we modify what He means when He uses a word.

At the end of all of this there is great difficulty in speaking to others who define words differently. I simply desire to boil it down to the basics.

 

[Mem]

1Peter 1:25

But the word of the Lord abideth for ever. And this is the word of good tidings which was preached unto you.

Hebrews 4:12

"....It (the Word of God) judges the thoughts and intentions of the heart"

It seems to me what one's heart chooses to do with the Word is what the Word judges.

 

[cv5]

I agree with you.

And I'd like to point out that there are times like with this word that translation can be difficult to make but much can be derived from the context. To explain from what you've provided in definition:

• akoē is a noun - so a thing - that we call a "verbal noun" because it can be talking about "the act of hearing (i.e., listening) as you've identified, but as a noun its primary meaning the thing heard, which you also identified.
  • So, there can be some built-in and intentional ambiguity in using akoē meant to make us think and pay close attention to context. BTW, John is very well-known to use such ambiguities.
• Here's how I see Paul using it here:
  • He's speaking about the act of hearing - they are "hearing" - because he makes it clear that a preacher/proclaimer is speaking the Gospel of Jesus Christ and furthermore, he's making it clear that what the preacher is saying is what God has spoken (see "rēma)
  • Paul is also tightening this up by quoting Isaiah:
    • NKJ Rom10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report (akoē)?"
    • So here Paul is using akoē in its objective noun form - what is heard - the thing heard - which you've included in the definition and shown is in this verse.
    • And we can see the "thing heard" ("report" in the NKJ) Paul parallels to the Gospel (and he parallels believing to obeying which @cv5 picked up and included in his recent post).
  • This is some of the power of the ambiguity of a verbal noun used in context.

Though there is no inference of an inability to hear or understand being stated here, I see @Cameron143 inserting it. And it's perfectly clear that he is when he defines "hearing" for us and includes "spiritual understanding" to the definition. I know it's not difficult to pick up that he's doing this, and to know why, but I prefer to have it clearly stated, which Cam did for us.

I also think that it's proper for us all to stick to the Word and actual definitions of words. As I said, we're speaking a different language if we don't define words the same as one another. And we're not speaking God's language if we don't know what He means when He uses a word (which gets us back to the base meaning of homologeō - same speak) which gets us to thinking (you've probably heard RBThieme say we can't think beyond our vocabulary). If we want to think like God, then we need to learn His vocabulary. We're not going to think like Him if we modify what He means when He uses a word.

At the end of all of this there is great difficulty in speaking to others who define words differently. I simply desire to boil it down to the basics.

includes "spiritual understanding" to the definition

That scrum would be coming right out of the super-determinist playbook sir.
So then is there cast an implicit aspersion/insinuation that nobody (ELSE) can possible be saved, and that preaching is not the necessary initial cause to elicit the desired effect?

 

[lrs68]

Stephen was preaching and we see they were cut to the heart (pricked).
Stephen was anointed and full of the Holy Spirit of God.
Stephen's words were anointed by the Holy Spirit of God.
But the key to that entire passage of Scripture is [(they chose to shut their ears)].

 

[HeIsHere]

At the end of all of this there is great difficulty in speaking to others who define words differently. I simply desire to boil it down to the basics.

Have you ever had a lengthy conversation with a Mormon or a JW.
If you have, then you notice how their minds are held captive.
It is deeper than the definition of words.
Just curious if you see it?