Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

[rogerg]

There's not much reason to go further when you stand against what's clearly stated in Acts16:31-33?

I and others can and have discussed your presented Scriptures many times. I've offered many times to go through such verses one at a time in detail with anybody who will collaborate respectfully until we wring it out as precisely as we can. There are some interesting ones there for both sides of the argument. There are also some that will stand against you as does Acts16:31 that you will very likely just reject as you do that Scripture.

Keep an eye on what @cv5 is working on. I can already tell you that he's working on a very interesting word that provides a strong argument in context for an alternative translation.

I agree and especially since you are unable or refuse to comprehend how God works within someone to bring about the ends that He desires.

 

[studier]

The Reformed movement/church has its roots in Calvinism.

Of course as in all "schools" of thought there are variations, however, I consider anyone who teaches unconditional election, which is presented using different words/terms is within the Calvinist teachings.


Unconditional election: belief that God has chosen people to save in advance and prepares their hearts to receive the gift of salvation; God offers this gift to people not based on their merit but as an act of undeserved grace.

https://www.rca.org/about/theology/

Understood.

I'm not saying I agree with @Cameron143 choice of discussions methods although as I've said to him, all the ists and isms are wearying and are just convenient or overly so.

With that said, his 3 out of 5 (so far) TULIP doctrines (as I recall) being the same or very similar are what they are.

For my part, I'd rather get down to it and see things like @rogerg assert salvation > belief in the face of Scripture that clearly says the opposite.

 

[rogerg]

I've offered many times to go through such verses one at a time in detail

well there they are - have at it. You might explain the ones that @Magenta presented too while you're at it

 

[studier]

I agree and especially since you are unable or refuse to comprehend how God works within someone to bring about the ends that He desires.

Roger, you're not saying much with any meaning. If you'd like to get into any single piece of Scripture in detail, one at a time, leaving aside a barrage of proof-texting until we concur that one or a few may be meaningful to look at, just say so.

I will tell you that if you cannot take such work to at least the detail I just put forth on Acts16:31 and all you can do is counter with "salvation > belief" (or however you out it) in spite of what the language says, it's kind of a waste of time. But I'm game if you are and I'll explain what I see and why if you'll work honestly and respectfully.

 

[Jordon]

To whom is your post intended, and which specific verse(s) do you have in mind?

I felt it would be better if I posted my post as a generalised post open for all to read, rather than address my post to one person.

Your right my post was made after reading someone's post, but I felt if i quoted them, they then may feel I was doubting there faith,

Such arguments are better looked upon with an over head projector.

Since the person who posted, didn't post a quote, I thought I wouldn't quote either.

As really we can all be sensible here and speak in a way , where we can receive a message without confrontation, kinda like loving your partner warts and all

 

[Genez]

I am saying two different things: 1) regardless of when read, the two tenses should match if one is an immediate cause of the other and, 2) as a general doctrine - a topic separate from 1 above - that belief is from salvation; salvation isn't from belief.

If that were the case?

Logic says... The given belief of salvation was the result of God knowing something about you before you believed.

If not? ... Then we are back to...

God chooses us, "Eeny, meeny, miny, moe" ​

Calvinists (with their apparent unresolved self hatred) just can not fathom that God approves of anything when a man's volition chooses for the right thing.

In other words?

Calvinists see God saying what when he saves someone? (Please, excuse my French).

"Come on in, you worthless piece of s_it." (for that is what Calvinism amounts to!)​

Those who mock and oppose you?
They see what it is you are denying about in a person believing!


If someone came up to you and handed you a million dollars?
And, you sensed he can be trusted?
What is meritorious about you accepting it?
You merit nothing!

His Trustworthiness holds all the merit!
"Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved!"

Thsoe who believe are able to sense God is to be trusted!
Yet, all the merit was to be found in God's trustworthiness, not you!

Those who reject salvation?
They find God untrustworthy and unworthy.
They see God as a liar, not as He is.

That is all there is to man's salvation!
No merit on our part.

All the merit is in the one offering the gift.
We simply perceived His Trustworthiness and accepted it.

It's not complicated!
It is the perplexing change we find in ourselves after we are born again that we find complicated!

Then? Satan brings in lies to impugn God if he could, to destabilize the saved.
Welcome to "Calvinism."

grace and peace!

 

[rogerg]

Roger, you're not saying much with any meaning. If you'd like to get into any single piece of Scripture in detail, one at a time, leaving aside a barrage of proof-texting until we concur that one or a few may be meaningful to look at, just say so.

I will tell you that if you cannot take such work to at least the detail I just put forth on Acts16:31 and all you can do is counter with "salvation > belief" (or however you out it) in spite of what the language says, it's kind of a waste of time. But I'm game if you are and I'll explain what I see and why if you'll work honestly and respectfully.

We've provided numerous verses that explain that salvation is before belief, which you chose to ignore. You, however, fixate on the "what" and ignore the "why", "how", and "when" of belief- the pieces that are central to belief. In spite of that, we've made abundantly clear, in order to show you, what causes belief within someone.

 

[Magenta]

well there they are - have at it. You might explain the ones that @Magenta presented too while you're at it

I have seen what they do with their eisegesis. Truly terrible when they destroy the main
and plain meanings of words to suit their Pelagian heresy. Don't be fooled into thinking
they will engage you respectfully, either. It's just another one of their delusional fantasies.

 

[rogerg]

Logic says... The given belief of salvation was the result of God knowing something about you before you believed.

No, not knowing - choosing - in spite of the person's traits or characteristics. That is what makes salvation purely by grace and not by works

 

[BillyBob]

The sad fact is that no man deserves God's grace and mercy, but He provides it to some!

 

[rogerg]

I have seen what they do with their eisegesis. Truly terrible when they destroy the main
and plain meanings of words to suit their Pelagian heresy. Don't be fooled into thinking
they will engage you respectfully, either. It's just another one of their delusional fantasies.

Thanks for the heads-up, Magenta. It seems to me we've already given them all the information they should need but are entirely unable to process or comprehend - like a drowning man flailing away with greater and greater intensity and yet can't stay above water.

 

[Magenta]

The sad fact is that no man deserves God's grace and mercy, but He provides it to some!

Just part of their heresy... they deserve it for making the right choice while denying that faith is a gift from God.

 

[rogerg]

I felt it would be better if I posted my post as a generalised post open for all to read, rather than address my post to one person.

Your right my post was made after reading someone's post, but I felt if i quoted them, they then may feel I was doubting there faith,

Such arguments are better looked upon with an over head projector.

Since the person who posted, didn't post a quote, I thought I wouldn't quote either.

As really we can all be sensible here and speak in a way , where we can receive a message without confrontation, kinda like loving your partner warts and all

Okay, well generally speaking, I for one, for whatever its worth, pretty much agree with what you posted.

 

[Magenta]

Thanks for the heads-up, Magenta. It seems to me we've already given them all the information they should need but are entirely unable to process or comprehend - like a drowning man flailing away with greater and greater intensity and yet can't stay above water.

You are welcome, Roger. Yes, dozens of properly harmonized verses ignored, contradicted, and outright denied on a regular basis by a number of posters here... and/or we are told they are taken out of context as if a universal axiom can be, such as there are none good. Just another something they deny to uphold their Pelagian error. They like to rewrite the Scriptures also as I have seen them do with that axiom, telling us Jesus said only those who CHOOSE to sin are slaves to sin when He did not say that at all. We were further told only atheists choose to sin. How ridiculous is that??? 1 Cor 2:14 is another one that also gets rewritten often by these heretics also. They just cannot accept what is written and then serve up one verse and want us to accept their whole false doctrine around it.

 

[Magenta]

“Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone. Mark ch. 10 verse 18 and Luke ch. 18 verse 19 “There is only One who is good.” Matthew ch. 19 verse 17b. There is no one who does good. fr Psalm ch. 14. There is no one righteous, not even one. Romans ch. 3 verse 10. They are corrupt; their ways are vile. There is no one who does good. All have turned away, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one. fr Psalm ch. 53 verses 1-3. Surely there is no righteous man on earth who does good and never sins. Ecclesiastes ch. 7 verse 20. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

 

[cv5]

I've pointed out to @Cameron143
......if he WILLS to.

I saw what you did there

 

[Rufus]

We know that.

But, did you have something informative to say?

Or, do you just like throwing fruit out of a ten-story window and do not bother to concern yourself with where it will land?

Apparently you soulmate Studier didn't.

And did my coconuts that I threw out of my window knock ya in ya noggin' and get ya all disoriented more than usual? If so, go find a safe space for yourself and hide under a rock. And I promise to pray for the poor rock...

 

[HeIsHere]

Acts16:31:

You (singular) believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ

• Aorist Active Imperative 2nd Person Singular: The jailer is being commanded to believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ.
  • What some don't want to accept here, is that the imperative/command is made to the will of the one commanded. The jailer is being commanded to choose to believe if he wants the result.
  • The Aorist command is not really concerned with when (time) but with how (aspect) the action is viewed. It's essentially viewed as a unit and something to be done decisively, completely, once-for-all.

And

• Connects the two clauses, so believe is connected to saved

You (singular) will be saved:

• Future Passive Indicative 2nd Person Singular: The jailer will be saved assuming he chooses to obey the command to believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ.
• The Future here can also be expressing certainty.
• The Passive Voice says the saving will be done to the jailer.
  • So, we who read the language know we don't save ourselves.

The Greek has a couple different things to consider:

• There is a logical order, so believe leads to salvation (believe > saved)
  • This cannot be reversed to say saved > believe.
• There is a temporal order, so belief precedes salvation
  • This cannot be reversed to say saved > believe.
  • In regard to the temporal order:
    • The timing can be saved contemporaneous with or after believe.
      • Being that the aorist command is being issued in urgency and completeness, IMO it's best to see the logical order of believe > saved and the temporal concept based upon other Scriptures being contemporaneous or immediate.
      • Though salvation is a process with an entrance and a completion (actually more than one completion) I don't see the process in view. The jailer is facing death for the loss of prisoners.

[Choose to] believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be immediately saved when you believe.

@cv5 @reneweddaybyday @Cameron143 @HeIsHere @Genez

I do not think any counterpoint/rebuttal to this exegesis is forthcoming, probably because it is not really possible.

But it would be interesting to see someone try.

 

[Genez]

No, not knowing - choosing - in spite of the person's traits or characteristics. That is what makes salvation purely by grace and not by works

OK? Fine!

I am still glad God saved you, you worthless piece of s_*t.

You are totally unworthy of anything good!
A proverbial, worthless piece of s_*t.

I just thought I would put some meat on those bones, so you can see what the skeleton you bow down to is really like!

Guess what?
I repented!

I looked in my toilet today before flushing.
I chose one to adopt as a son.

... daddy!

Calvinism does have a few problems.......

 

[cv5]

Just part of their heresy... they deserve it for making the right choice while denying that faith is a gift from God.

Lol....even the Calvinists know that these kinds of statements are just blowing smoke. Nor do they actually believe them.