Can We Really Exercise Free Will?
- Thread starter LifelongLearner
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
First, you redefined conviction. Then you ignored well-established lexicography like BDAG to retain your redefinition. BDAG clearly defines elegchō in John16:8 as the Spirit bringing the world to recognition. Then you redefined volition by making it immediately and necessarily subordinate to your redefined version of conviction. But conviction brings a person to the point of recognition; With volition he chooses his response. At that point of conviction/recognition, the unbeliever chooses between Truth and error - between belief in God and unbelief and rejection of God. You’re not going to overturn actual definitions by pivoting to other Scripture while carrying your error with you. The premise is already flawed.
You think that it is merely one parable that is being rejected?
How does this sound:
[Gal 1:8 KJV]
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
[Gal 1:9 KJV]
As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
I do not see how the "gospel of pre-selection" fails this test.
An accurate assessment.
As has been resoundingly demonstrated on this thread, any hack belching out an incomprehensible word salad that defies every rule of hermeneutics and logic gets the nod from the entrenched super-determinists around here.
In fact they prefer it that way. The more chaos the better. Their very survival depends upon it.
You redefined conviction. Conviction doesn't mean to inform, but to persuade. Volition is simply choosing. Someone under conviction is persuaded of the truth. The truth or newly formed belief is the basis for the following action.
At the same time, the heart needs to be engaged. One must not only believe in their mind but believe in their heart to be saved...Romans 10:9-10. This is impossible with the heart of stone. This is why God removes it. Once He does, obedience can occur. Until He does, he cannot obey or believe. This is the work of the Spirit who takes up residence in the believer.
You make a superhero of the fallen natural man. You endow him with abilities God says he lacks. You have him believing by information, not conviction. You have him obeying from a heart of stone. You have him understanding spiritual truth apart from the Spirit.
Again, as long as you retain your own definition ignoring established reference materials, you can pretty much say what you want and think it makes sense. The Scripture I referenced speaks of Divine Wisdom vs. human wisdom and per God, becoming mature and controlling our tongues. Assuming we've all read and understand these Scriptures we should all have been convicted - we should all recognize - what we're called to be in Christ. The fact that we see so much activity contrary to this, shows volition well in play once more - choosing to disregard Divine Wisdom and exercising little control over our tongues. Recognition > Choose to believe or not believe.
You trash talked Rufus for months and now talk of controlling your tongue as if you do?
You are probably still trash talking him, and you certainly do others.
Established reference materials means those you accept because they agree with your presups.
FWers lack the discernment to differentiate the unregenerated man from the spiritual man.
are yeah perhaps the serpent was lying when he said you would know knowledge of good and evil then and be like God, maybe what the serpent wanted was for people to be like God, and act as if they where God
A bit like the serpents nature. Thanks for the corrections.
.I'll go with the sin of disobedience severed there nature from God albeit with some assistance from the servant to eve.
I wonder what would have happened if they had eaten from the tree of life first ?
You conclusion is flawed, because your premise is wrong and not what scripture says.
The serpent did not say they would gain all knowledge of good and evil. They already had knowledge of God,
Who is good. And we already know what would have happened had they eaten from the Tree of Life and that
is why it was thereafter barred to them. God knew what they were going to do before they did it...
Good to know roger.
I never thought he did fix the the heart of a stone in a way lol
Obviously not the same as other ideas, anyhow the idea was nice.
Oh well back to the drawing board .
No, he said you will be like God to know good and evil, and God agreed with that assessment.
The lie was, you shall not surely die, and the lie at the heart of the fall of man and
corruption of all creation is believed and repeated by many to this very day.
A while back you told me to go back to the drawing board. I didn't tell you that it at that time already contained at least 5 logical fallacies you had put forth by then. I simply highlighted only one of them.
Your response here contains at least seven of such errors: circular reasoning, equivocation, begging the question, false cause, straw man, lexical dismissal, and ad hominem. Redefining terms, then using those redefinitions to override both BDAG and Scripture, doesn’t clarify—it compounds the error. Ignoring or overriding established lexical tools like BDAG is already a substantial problem evidenced in your reasoning and methods. Compounding that with this many logical violations makes the argument too incoherent to take remotely seriously.
As you say, grace and peace...
yeah same thing really either way it was probably a lie.
Take care and Bye for now I'm of to work.
We all are to some extent.
But when it comes to the Gospel and the abhorrent extent that reformed/calvie/tulip theory will detract, thwart or deny it to unbelievers?
EVIL.
Seems like sanctification before justification... that definitely creates problems.