Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

[Magenta]

John 18 v 37b John 8 v 47 Matthew 13 v 11b For this reason I was born and have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to My voice. Whoever belongs to God hears the words of God. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. Plus 2 Timothy 1 v 9, He has saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works, but by His own purpose and by the grace He granted us in Christ Jesus before time began.

 

[HeIsHere]

Look for that sermon excerpt anywhere else. You WILL not find it. And the cadence of the speech isn't Paul's. That's the danger about all this AI. They have already been creating fake sermons by numerous people. That's why I don't listen to any sermons where I can't see the person speaking OR that isn't posted by a legitimate source.

That is his sermon.
https://www.sermonaudio.com/fr/sermons/62418176325/a

This website stands as legitimate (sermon audio) until you can prove other wise.

 

[Cameron143]

I'll start with this line. Even for this purpose have i raised thee up that my name might be declared though all the land. All those kings getting smashed on in the old testament is a form of evangelism. In fact I bet more Christianity was evangelized at the end of a sword than any other way. Judgment and war is one way the word is spread. Its not how it is thought of today but that is how alot of it spread. That being said I do belive Jericho was judgment. Evangelism was a byproduct of what happened there.

I agree that the threat of judgment upon these nations led some to form alliances with Israel. Now tell me how the inhabitants of Jericho were evangelized.

 

[HeIsHere]

Sorry, I can't change the title

I never doubted for a moment.
I know his "shtick" I feel sorry for his congregation but I guess that is their choice.

 

[Blue155]

That is an assumption.

Prove it

 

[BillyBob]

Are they still looking for verses articulating free will? LOL


Eh? He has lots of vile projections drawn from the depths of his wicked God-blaspheming imagination.

cv5 constantly adds to Scripture to make himself loom large in the eyes of others. However, when called out for doing so - he has no answer. Pathetic!

 

[HeIsHere]

Prove it

I think it up to you to prove your own assumption, not me.

 

[Rufus]

I don't know if we will agree on everything since I don't know anything about you outside of this discussion but I believe we would have good talks. Haha. I appreciate the way you have communicated issues here.

Thank you for your kind words. I have a strong passion for the Five Doctrines of Grace because I saw them in scripture early on in my faith before I knew much of anything about Calvin, Luther or the Reformation, for that matter. Of course, I didn't become aware of the various labels used in this system of soteriology until later on after reading the works of others and what they said about the Reformers. The megabytes of irony here is that I have never read anything written by Calvin (except small excerpts provided by third parties).

 

[Blue155]

I think it up to you to prove your own assumption, not me.

No, that’s not how logic works. You claimed my statement was an assumption, which means you’re the one making the positive claim that it isn’t self-evident or true. The burden of proof rests on the one making the counter-claim. If you say something is an assumption, then you need to show why it’s unfounded. Otherwise, you’re just asserting, not reasoning

Besides, it’s not really an assumption — it’s a self-evident truth. You can’t exercise what you don’t have. You can’t swim without water, breathe without air, or choose without will. If you deny that, you’re denying the very experience of choosing to deny it

 

[Cameron143]

I'll start with this line. Even for this purpose have i raised thee up that my name might be declared though all the land. All those kings getting smashed on in the old testament is a form of evangelism. In fact I bet more Christianity was evangelized at the end of a sword than any other way. Judgment and war is one way the word is spread. Its not how it is thought of today but that is how alot of it spread. That being said I do belive Jericho was judgment. Evangelism was a byproduct of what happened there.

If one goes to Jude 22-23 they will find that God uses both compassion and fear to save people. The Gibeonites may have been spared death, but they weren't necessarily spared a future judgment. It's not like they received an inheritance in Israel. They were slaves.

 

[Magenta]

cv5 constantly adds to Scripture to make himself loom large in the eyes of others.
However, when called out for doing so - he has no answer. Pathetic!

Yes, you are correct, I have witnessed the same, and he is so shameless in this practice that
he rewrote the very words of Jesus Christ Himself, which was the impetus for this panel:

Jesus replied, “Truly, truly, I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin." John 8 v 34 Not, only those who choose to sin or only atheists. Everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Romans 3 v 23 - all have sinned...

 

[Magenta]

If one goes to Jude 22-23 they will find that God uses both compassion and fear to save people. The Gibeonites may have been spared death, but they weren't necessarily spared a future judgment. It's not like they received an inheritance in Israel. They were slaves.

Psalm 36 verses 1-4 ~ An oracle is in my heart regarding the transgression of the wicked man: There is no fear of God before his eyes. For his eyes are too full of conceit to detect or hate his own sin. The words of his mouth are wicked and deceitful; he has ceased to be wise and well-doing. Even on his bed he plots wickedness; he sets himself on a path that is not good; he fails to reject evil.

 

[HeIsHere]

No, that’s not how logic works. You claimed my statement was an assumption, which means you’re the one making the positive claim that it isn’t self-evident or true. The burden of proof rests on the one making the counter-claim. If you say something is an assumption, then you need to show why it’s unfounded. Otherwise, you’re just asserting, not reasoning

Besides, it’s not really an assumption — it’s a self-evident truth. You can’t exercise what you don’t have. You can’t swim without water, breathe without air, or choose without will. If you deny that, you’re denying the very experience of choosing to deny it

The person who makes the claim (the claimant or the affirmative side) is generally responsible for supporting that claim with evidence. The person challenging the claim does not have the burden of proof to disprove an unsupported assertion.

Try again.
Not self-evident btw.

 

[Magenta]

The fear of the Lord leads to life, that one may rest content, without visitation from harm. Proverbs 19 v 23 He who fears the Lord is secure in confidence, and his children shall have a place of refuge. The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life, turning a man from the snares of death. Proverbs 14 v 26-27 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Proverbs 9 v 10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline. Proverbs 1 v 7 The fear of the Lord is the instruction of wisdom, and humility comes before honor. Proverbs 15 v 33 His mercy extends to those who fear Him, from generation to generation. Luke 1 v 50 By the fear of the LORD one turns aside from evil. Proverbs 16 v 6B

 

[Blue155]

The person who makes the claim (the claimant or the affirmative side) is generally responsible for supporting that claim with evidence. The person challenging the claim does not have the burden of proof to disprove an unsupported assertion.

Try again.
Not self-evident btw.

I did make the claim — and I supported it logically. The claim is that you can’t exercise something you don’t first have. That’s not an assumption; that’s a self-evident truth — a basic law of causality. A thing cannot act without first existing.

You can’t exercise strength without first having strength.

You can’t exercise reason without first having a mind.

You can’t exercise choice without first having the capacity to choose — i.e., will.

If you deny that, you’re not just disagreeing with me — you’re denying the law of identity and non-contradiction, which underlies all rational thought.

You also contradicted yourself the moment you chose to argue that free will doesn’t exist. You exercised the very thing you deny by deciding to respond.

So yes, I’ve met the burden of proof — through reason itself. To deny it is to use it.

 

[HeIsHere]

I did make the claim — and I supported it logically. The claim is that you can’t exercise something you don’t first have. That’s not an assumption; that’s a self-evident truth — a basic law of causality. A thing cannot act without first existing.

You can’t exercise strength without first having strength.

You can’t exercise reason without first having a mind.

You can’t exercise choice without first having the capacity to choose — i.e., will.

If you deny that, you’re not just disagreeing with me — you’re denying the law of identity and non-contradiction, which underlies all rational thought.

You also contradicted yourself the moment you chose to argue that free will doesn’t exist. You exercised the very thing you deny by deciding to respond.

So yes, I’ve met the burden of proof — through reason itself. To deny it is to use it.

You also contradicted yourself the moment you chose to argue that free will doesn’t exist. You exercised the very thing you deny by deciding to respond.

You must be confused, where did this happen.

The part I am saying is an assumption is that people do not have it, sure you use examples that are obvious as you elaborate, but in your first statement it is not obvious.

Your statement was vague.

 

[Blue155]

You must be confused, where did this happen.

The part I am saying is an assumption is that people do not have it, sure you use examples that are obvious as you elaborate, but in your first statement it is not obvious.

Your statement was vague.

I think continuing this conversation is just a waste of both of our time. I don’t see this going anywhere productive, so I’m going to step away from it.

 

[HeIsHere]

I think continuing this conversation is just a waste of both of our time. I don’t see this going anywhere productive, so I’m going to step away from it.

I thought it was very productive.

If you have something you can exercise it, if you not possess something you cannot exercise it.

If you were talking about "free will" you should have said so, because actually I agree.

Why be vague.

Easy peasy

 

[Cameron143]

You're right, but I'm righter.

 

[Magenta]

I thought it was very productive.

If you have something you can exercise it, if you not possess something you cannot exercise it.

If you were talking about "free will" you should have said so, because actually I agree.

Why be vague.

Easy peasy

The fact that man has a will is not proof it is free, that is just your eisegesis.